THE  LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN 
MEDIEVAL  JAPAN 


BY 

K/ASAKAWA 


Reprinted  from  the  Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association 
for  1916,  Volume  I,  pages  311-342 


WASHINGTON 

.GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1919 


X.  THE  LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN. 


By  K.  ASAKAWA, 

Assistant  Professor  of  History  in  Yale  University . 


311 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


' 

- 

https://archive.org/details/lifeofmonasticsh008800 


THE  LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN.* 


By  K.  Asakawa. 


The  sho  hardly  lends  itself  to  a simple  definition,  for,  in  its  pro- 
longed career  of  800  years  between  the  eighth  and  the  sixteenth 
centuries;  it  epitomized,  as  it  were,  progressive  changes  in  the  general 
institutional  life  of  Japan  during  this  unusually  eventful  period. 
Taking  the  sho,  however,  at  its  full  growth  in  the  twelfth  century, 
one  may  perhaps  define  it  as  a piece  of  land  which  was  held  privately 
under  a lord  by  persons  in  varied  and  changeable  tenures,  and  which 
nevertheless  formed  an  administrative  entity  enjoying  a degree  of 
fiscal  and  judicial  autonomy.  This  condensed  description  may  per- 
haps be  clarified  by  means  of  a comparison.  The  sho  has  been  trans- 
lated by  an  English  historian  of  Japan  as  manor.1  Like  the  manor  in 
medieval  Europe  and  England,  the  sho  was  a unit  at  once  economic 
and  political,  in  which  its  public  functions  had  become  private  pos- 
sessions of  its  proprietors,  and  in  which  the  rights  and  obligations 
of  persons  were  determined  by  their  tenures  of  land.  There  was  a 
marked  difference,  however,  between  the  two  institutions.  The 
manor  possessed  features  resembling  those  of  a village  community, 
but  the  sho  reminds  one  of  a “scattered  farm”  system;  instead  of 
comprising,  like  the  typical  manor,  rectangular  strips  of  arable  land 
laid  out  and  administered  by  a joint  intervention  of  lord  and  tenants, 
the  shd  consisted,  in  its  cultivated  portions,  of  plots  which  were 
irregular  in  shape,  size,  and  position,  and  were  for  the  most  part 
managed  independently  by  their  holders.2  Again,  these  tenants,  un- 
like those  in  the  manor,  whose  tenures  were  comparatively  simple 
and  stationary,  were  bound  together  by  a network  of  legal  relations 
between  one  another  and  between  them  and  the  lord  which  were  not 
only  intricate  but  also  capable,  so  long  as  the  fiscal  rights  of  the 
lord  were  not  affected,  of  continual  change.  If,  therefore,  a chief 
problem  of  the  origin  of  the  manor  concerns  its  element  of  common 
management,  the  first  question  regarding  the  sho  must  relate  to  the 
cause  of  its  growth  as  a congeries  of  changeable  interests  and  relations 
loosely  bundled  together  under  a seignior. 

This  question  will  be  partly  answered  in  the  brief  account 8 of  the 
origin  of  the  sho  that  follows.  The  agriculture  of  Japan  in  her 

* The  footnotes  to  this  article  will  he  found,  arranged  continuously,  at  the  end  of  the 
article. 


/O' 


313 


314 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


oarly  historic  ages  seems  to  have  been  of  a “ scattered  farm  ” system, 
which  was  accompanied,  at  least  as  regards  rice  land,  by  a system 
of  private  ownership,  vested  either  in  the  family  or  in  the  indi- 
vidual. These  conditions  were  presumably  due  to  the  absence  of 
pasture 4 and,  above  all,  the  cultivation  of  rice 5 as  the  chief  industry 
of  the  peasants;  the  rice  culture  required  irrigable  lowlands.6  a fact 
which  in  that  hilly  country  made  a scattered  farm  system  natural; 
the  rice  culture  also  involved  constant  care  and  highly  individualized 
labor,5  which  were  facilitated  under  a system  of  exclusive  private 
ownership  in  small  fields.7  In  defiance  of  these  conditions,  the 
government  of  the  seventh  century  made  a radical  attempt  to 
arrange  the  free  taxable  population  in  artificial  communities  of  50 
families,  and  to  impose  upon  it  a system  of  equal  allotment  of  rice 
land  subject  to  a periodical  redistribution.  Within  a short  time  the 
new  system  broke  down  on  all  sides.  The  greatest  breach  was  made 
first  through  a natural  combination  of  the  immune  classes  of  persons 
with  the  immune  classes  of  land  that  had  been  devised  in  the  system ; 
the  nobility,  the  clergy,  and  the  unfree,  who  were  exempt  from 
tributes  and  forced  labor,  established  connections  with  “imperial 
lands,”  lands  granted  by  the  emperor,  and  “ temple  lands,”  that  were 
free  from  the  land  tax.  Far  more  serious  troubles  arose  when  im- 
mune persons  appropriated  tracts  of  wild  or  newly  tilled  land 
and  sought  to  convert  them  into  immune  lands.  The  result  was 
the  sho.  Sho  made  their  appearance  from  the  eighth  century,  at 
first  few  and  small  and  not  always  immune,  but  gradually  absorb- 
ing other  lands,  including  taxable  lands,  and  making  them  partly 
or  wholly  immune.  This  process  was  at  length  officially  sanctioned 
from  the  tenth  century,8  especially  after  the  eleventh,  when  the 
authorities  were  constrained  to  grant  charters  of  immunity  to  some 
of  the  sho,  in  order  to  distinguish  them  from  others  which  were 
still  considered  illegitimate.  The  creation  and  extension  of  sho 
now  went  on  apace  at  the  expense  of  the  State. 

This  would  appear  to  be  a reversion  from  an  artificial  village 
community  to  a scattered-farm  system,  and  to  private  ownership; 
but  these  reappeared  in  a totally  new  form.  The  typical  sho  was 
born  of  a newly-cultivated  tract,  and,  with  this  as  its  core,  it  ma- 
tured by  a double  process  of  absorbing  neighboring  tracts  and  di- 
viding its  growing  self.  But  the  annexation  and  subdivision  were 
not  always  made  of  the  actual  land.  The  native  genius  of  the  race 
for  adaptability  found  its  expression  here  in  a free  division  of  the 
various  interests  and  rights  relative  to  land,  in  their  investment  in 
different  hands,  and  in  their  almost  indefinite  redivision  and  con- 
veyance. Thus  were  greatly  facilitated  transactions  in  proprietary 
and  usufructuary  rights,  the  same  piece  of  land  cultivated  by  one  per- 
son soon  giving  titles  and  yielding  profits  to  many.9  A singular  and 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SH&  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN.  315 

important  aspect  of  these  real  rights  and  interests  was  that  they 
usually  retained  upon  them  marks  of  the  conditions  in  which  they 
had  originated;  the  two  main  classes  of  relations  being  those  that 
arose  from  the  voluntary  commendation  of  land  by  a free  owner  to 
a lord,  and  those  that  sprang  from  a grant  by  the  lord  to  a tenant — 
the  former  the  freer,  and  the  latter  the  more  precarious  in  character. 
And  relations  of  these  two  classes  again  shaded  into  many  grades  of 
quality  as  they  changed  hands  and  were  further  parcelled,  sub- 
limated, or  burdened  with  conditions.  The  sho  of  the  12th  cen- 
tury that  I defined  at  the  outset  was,  therefore,  characterized  by  an 
intricate  plexus  of  real  rights  and  obligations  that  had  been  and  con- 
tinued to  be  interwoven  upon  the  lands  comprised  within  the  area.10 
These  lands  and  legal  relations  were  loosely  held  together  under  a 
seignior,  the  nature  of  whose  authority  varied  greatly  according  as 
to  whether  he  was  a civil  noble,  a military  leader,  or  a religious  cor- 
poration. 

The  sho,  at  once  like  and  unlike  the  manor  as  it  was,  became  a 
primary  cause  of  the  feudal  regime  in  Japan;  for,  when  the  warrior 
entered  the  sho  and  established  himself  as  its  “ resident,”  manager, 
or  lord,  it  gradually  in  the  course  of  a few  centuries  acquired  char- 
acteristics of  the  regular  fief.  Of  this  important  transformation  of 
the  sho  into  the  fief,  the  exact  process  is  still  obscure.11  I shall  try 
to  see  if  any  light  may  be  thrown  on  it  by  the  history  of  a non-feudal 
sho.  I now  propose  to  take  up  a typical  sh5,  not  under  a military 
chieftain,  but  belonging  to  a Buddhist  monastery,  and  observe  how  it 
was  born,  how  it  grew  and  changed,  and  how  it  died  as  a sho  as  such, 
and,  above  all,  analyze — tentatively,  for  the  present — effects  of  the 
influences  that  the  stress  of  the  times  during  the  feudal  ages  exerted 
upon  the  multiple  tenures  and  institutions  of  the  sh6. 

I. 

The  historic  monastery  on  Ko-ya  San,  or  Mount  Koya,  in  central 
Japan,  some  50  miles  almost  due  south  of  Kyoto,  the  old  imperial 
capital,  was  founded  in  816  by  the  priest  Kobo.  Kobo,12  of  all  the 
early  apostles  of  Japan,  has  been  the  object  of  the  most  universal 
veneration  by  Buddhists  of  all  classes,  places,  and  denominations. 
As  for  the  monastery  that  he  founded,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
almost  every  great  event  in  national  history  has  found  reverberation 
in  the  romantic  career  of  this  religious  establishment.  We  are 
concerned  in  this  study,  however,  only  with  the  position  of  the 
institution  as  a seignior,  for  such  it  had  become  before  the  feudal  rule 
was  established  in  Japan  in  1186,  and  such  it  continued  to  be  through- 
out the  feudal  ages.  The  cartulary  of  the  Koya  monastery  contains 
more  than  three  thousand  documents18  relating  to  the  many  sho 


316 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


it  has  controlled  that  form  an  invaluable  material  for  the  study  of 
the  institutional  and  economic  life  of  feudal  Japan. 

The  early  possessions  of  Koya,  despite  its  later  pretensions,  do  not 
seem  to  have  been  extensive.  Sixty  years  after  its  foundation  the 
rice  lands,  recognized  as  its  immune  “ temple-lands,”  appear  to  have 
aggregated  but  a little  more  than  100  acres.14  To  these  were  added 
other  tracts  through  purchases,  grants  by  imperial  personages,  dona- 
tions by  nobles,  and  commendations  by  private  owners.  These  lands 
were,  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  all  exempt  from  the  miscel- 
laneous impositions;  some  were  free  also  from  the  chief  land  tax. 
Apart  from  their  immunity,  these  sho  and  other  domains  of  Koya 
differed  widely  among  themselves,  in  their  composition  of  lands  and 
tenures,  in  their  private  fiscal  methods,  and  in  the  degree  of  control 
the  monastery  as  seignior  exercised  upon  them.  F rom  the  standpoint 
of  the  later  developments,  a general  distinction  might  conveniently 
be  drawn  between  the  sho  that  originated  in  grants  or  gifts  from 
high  personages 16  and  those  that  arose  from  commendations  made  by 
private  owners  with  reservations  of  their  rights.16  In  the  former 
sho  the  monastery  could  have  a freer  sway  over  their  affairs  than 
in  the  latter,  for  in  these  it  had  to  observe  its  agreements  with  the 
original  commenders.  And  it  seemed  to  be  the  continued  effort  of 
Koya  to  reduce  to  the  level  of  the  one  class  the  more  independent 
sho  of  the  other.17  To  this  second  and  more  interesting  class  be- 
longed the  double  sho  of  Kono-Makuni — later  triple 18  with  the  addi- 
tion of  Sarukawa — which  will  furnish  the  theme  for  this  paper. 

The  Kono-Makuni  shd  was  situated  several  miles  southwest  of 
Mount  Koya  on  both  sides  of  a road  leading  to  the  city  of  W akayama. 
The  sho  originated,  like  most  sho,  with  one  or  two  pieces  of  waste 
land  reclaimed,  perhaps  late  in  the  ninth  century,  by  a local  resident 
of  some  note.19  In  911,  a part  of  the  modest  income  from  the  estate 
wTas  informally  pledged  to  the  monastery,20  but  the  title  over  the  land 
was  so  insecure  that  provincial  authorities  classed  it  as  public  and 
levied  taxes  upon  it.21  In  order  to  receive  the  benefit  of  immunity, 
in  1143, 22  the  owner  of  the  tract,  a descendant  of  the  original  reclaimer, 
commended  it  to  a court  noble  of  the  Fujiwara  family  at  Kyoto,  as 
the  custom  was,  with  the  title  of  Possessor  ( ryd-ke ),23  with  the  under- 
standing that  the  latter  would  himself  commend  the  same  land  to 
the  ex-emperor,  Go-Toba,  as  Lord  (hon-sho)  ,23  and  that  the  first  corn- 
mender  and  his  descendants  in  succession  should  serve  as  Managers 
( adzukari-dohoro ) under  the  direction  of  the  Possessor.22  The  Koya 
monastery  was  to  be  remembered  with  an  annual  payment  in  rice 22  as 
a recompense  for  the  religious  service  it  should  perform  in  behalf 
of  the  ex-emperor.24  The  place  was  now  for  the  first  time  formally 
staked  out  as  a sho,  and  a charter  was  issued  from  the  ex-emperor’s 
chamber  summarizing  the  conditions  and  granting  freedom  from 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN.  317 

the  public  land-tax  and  from  the  visitation  of  both  local  officials  and 
monastic  agents.22  This  is  the  birth  of  the  double  sho  of  Rono- 
Makuni.  It  will  be  noted  that,  in  spite  of  the  creation  of  the  titular 
Possessor,  the  real  possessor  and  exploiter  of  the  land  was  still  the 
commender,  who  had  reserved  his  place  as  hereditary  Manager;  in 
all  probability  he  simply  rendered  a tribute  to  the  noble  Possessor, 
who  may  or  may  not  in  turn  have  given  up  a part  of  it  to  the  nominal 
imperial  Lord.  As  for  the  monastery,  it  was  merely  entitled  to  a 
fraction  o.f  the  income  of  the  sho,  to  which  it  was  forbidden  even 
to  send  a collector. 

It  could  hardly  be  expected  that  Koya  would  rest  content  with 
this  meager  lot.  The  monastery  sought  with  some  success  to  estab- 
lish a direct  contact  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  sho,25  probably  using 
as  a lever  its  right  to  an  annual  tax,  and  also  by  appealing  to  its 
defunct  title  of  911  as  a commendee.26  Early  in  1177,  it  seems  to 
have  succeeded  in  gaining  by  a characteristically  roundabout  way 
a promise  from  the  Possessor  of  an  additional  annual  due.27  Nor 
was  Koya  less  alert  to  improve  every  opportunity  to  increase  its  claim 
upon  the  control  of  the  affairs  of  the  shd ; and,  as  it  happened,  both 
the  Possessor  and  the  Manager,  by  ill-considered  acts,  played  into 
the  hands  of  the  astute  monastery.  Especially  the  Manager,  believ- 
ing that  he  rightfully  controlled  the  use  of  the  land,  commended 
the  sho  in  some  manner  to  another  monastery,28  and  about  1190  with 
equal  lack  of  thought,  commended  the  sho  in  a vague  title  to  Koya.29 
This  the  latter  pretended,  to  believe  to  be  the  very  managership  of 
the  sho;  it  acted  according  to  that  conviction,  reducing  the  former 
Manager  into  the  position  of  an  agent.30 

II. 

When  a partial  feudal  rule  was  introduced  into  the  governing  ma- 
chinery of  Japan  in  1186,  Koya  promptly  enlisted  the  good-will  of 
the  suzerain,  Minamoto-no-Yoritomo,  and  secured  from  him  an  im- 
munity of  all  its  sho  from  a military  surtax  and  from  the  interference 
of  the  new  military  constables  and  stewards.31  These  privileges  were 
conceded  by  Yoritomo  with  the  greater  willingness,  as  it  formed  a 
part  of  his  conservative  policy,  so  far  as  was  compatible  with  the 
real  political  power  which  he  had  won,  to  respect  the  class  interests 
and  proprietary  rights  that  he  found  in  entrenchment  everywhere. 
And  K5ya  was  one  of  the  greatest  landlords  and  one  of  the  most 
formidable  religious  institutions  in  all  Japan. 

Perhaps  the  greatest  gain  for  the  monastery  was  the  recognition 
it  succeeded  in  winning  from  the  new  ruler  of  its  alleged  ancient 
territorial  rights.32  Koya  had  for  some  time  pretended — for  the 
claim  can  be  proven  to  be  a pretension — and  now  pretended  success- 


318 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


fully,  that  at  the  founding  of  the  monastery  in  816  by  Kobd,  the 
local*  deity  yielded  to  him,  and  the  imperial  government  also 
granted  to  him,  10,000  chd  (nearly  30,000  acres)  of  land  around  the 
mountain.33  This  wide  area,  to  which  Koya  henceforth  referred  as 
its  “ancient  domain”  (hyu-ryo) ,34  Avould  include  the  double  sho  of 
Kono-Makuni 35  as  well  as  many  other  districts ; 36  and  the  claim 
furnished  grounds  for  the  extension,  not  only  of  the  land  of  the 
various  slio,  but  also  of  the  power  of  the  monastery  as  the  dispenser 
of  benefits.  Within  the  rather  indefinite  borders  of  this  territory 
K5ya  seems  to  have  been  enabled  to  create  or  claim37  lands  and 
landed  interests  under  its  direct  control,38  in  juxtaposition  with  freer 
tenures,  and  to  try  to  assimilate  the  latter  to  the  former.39 

As  regards  the  Kono-Makuni  sho,  of  which  the  monastery  had 
already  professed  the  managership,  a fortunate  event  occurred  in 
1221  to  enable  it  to  make  its  control  of  its  land  and  people  more 
complete.  The  Fujiwara  noble  who  still  claimed  the  title  of  Pos- 
sessor,40 as  well  as  the  imperial  Lord  of  the  sho,  were  in  that  year 
involved  in  a plot  to  overthrow  the  feudal  government  and  were 
defeated  and  exiled,  and  the  titles  seem  to  have  lapsed.  As  the 
actual  Lord 41  and  as  Possessor  and  Manager  as  well  in  name 42  as  in 
reality,  the  monastery  now  had  virtually  no  one  over  it  and  no  other 
magnate  eclipsing  its  power  as  the  seignior  of  the  sho;  it  had  already 
begun  to  deal  directly  with  the  landholders  of  the  sho,  and  now  re- 
doubled its  effort,  as  will  be  seen  later,  to  reduce  its  freer  tenures  to 
a greater  dependence  upon  its  will.  There  was  henceforth  little 
substantial  difference  in  the  character  of  the  seigniorial  control  over 
them  between  granted  sho  and  this  sho,  which  had  originated  in 
commendations.43 

It  was  also  in  this  period  that  the  neighboring  district  of  Sarukawa 
was  attached  as  a joint  member  to  the  double  sho,44  which  appears  in 
documents  from  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century  as  the  triple  45 
Kono-Makuni- Sarukawa  sho.  The  previous  history  of  Sarukawa  had 
been  similar  to  that  of  most  commended  sho,  having  passed  through 
the  familiar  stages  of  original  cultivation  by  a local  magnate,46 
hereditary  possession  by  his  children,47  and  commendation  with  reser- 
vation.44 

We  have  so  far  discussed  the  progress  of  the  control  of  the  monastic 
seignior  over  the  triple  sho  as  a whole.  This  had  come  about  simul- 
taneously with  the  internal  changes  that  occurred  both  in  the  tenures 
of:  the  individual  landholders  in  the  sho  and  in  the  character  of  its 
administrative  machinery.  To  these  changes  we  shall  now  turn. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  triple  sho  had  originated,  not  in 
grants  or  gifts  from  high  quarters,  but  in  commendations  with  res- 
ervations, first  by  one  owner  of  his  land  and  then  by  others  of  theirs. 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN.  319 

Many  of  these  men  and  others  of  their  class  were  of  families  whose 
members  had  for  generations  lived  in  the  place,48  owned  lands,49  car- 
ried arms  and  kept  retainers,50  even  had  served  in  Kyoto  as  minor 
officials  and  made  influential  connections  at  the  capital,51  and  had 
generally  established  their  prestige  as  local  chiefs.  When  they  com- 
mended their  lands  to  a seignior,  and  perhaps  even  when  they  sold 
or  mortgaged  them  among  themselves,  what  was  actually  combed 
was  often  mere  interests  and  profits;  in  these  cases  the  lands  them- 
selves and  their  management — or  “ the  use  of  the  original  and  inde- 
structible powers  of  the  soil,”  to  quote  the  Ricardian  phrase — re- 
mained in  reality  in  the  hands  of  the  former  owners ; 52  and  these 
lands,  as  well  as  others  that  they  still  held  in  more  complete  titles, 
were  transmitted  by  heredity  or  alienated  with  all  the  obligations 
that  encumbered  them.63  These  men  were  chief  among  the  yu-nin 
(“residents”)  or  hyaku-sho  ■ (bearers  of  family  names),  and  ji-shu 
(“landholders”),54  who  formed  the  backbone  of  the  sho,  supporting 
its  life  and  bearing  its  burdens.55  The  titular  masters  of  the  sho  had 
perforce  to  rely  on  the  good  faith  and  cooperation  of  these  men, 
whether  in  the  administration  of  its  affairs56  or  in  its  defense57 
against  aggressions  from  without,  which  were  frequent.58  Such  was 
the  condition  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century. 

This  state  of  things  began  to  change  gradually  toward  the  close 
of  the  pre-feudal  period,  and  then  more  rapidly  after  the  beginning 
of  the  thirteenth  century.  First,  we  turn  to  the  officials  of  the  sho. 
The  cartulary  happens  to  contain  nineteen  oaths  of  fealty 59  sworn 
between  1271  and  1315  by  the  various  officials  of  the  triple  sho  that 
reveal  conditions  quite  different  from  those  that  must  have  prevailed 
there  even  in  1221.  It  is  true  that  the  posts  of  these  officials  as  the 
financial  and  police  agents  of  the  sho,  held  as  they  were  by  members 
of  its  representative  families,  were  all  hereditary60  and  regarded 
rather  as  profits  than  as  functions,  even  women 61  being  permitted  to 
succeed  to  them.  There  now  had  appeared  among  the  officials,  how- 
ever, a perceptible  distinction  between  two  classes,  namely : the  lower 
ones  representing  more  closely  the  actual  holders  of  lands,62  and  the 
higher  ones  who  were  in  more  direct  contact  with  Koya,  and  who 
perhaps  were  generally  looked  upon  rather  as  servants  of  the  mon- 
astery than  as  the  landlords  that  their  forefathers  were  and  that 
some  of  them  must  still  have  been  themselves.63  The  oaths  given  by 
the  latter  class  of  agents  indicate  that  their  position  was  distinctly 
more  precarious  than  that  of  the  former.64  As  a matter  of  fact  the 
services  of  the  higher  agents  were  rewarded  with  grants  of  land  or 
rice;65  the  more  recalcitrant  among  them  could  be  punished  with 
summary  dismissal  and  their  hereditary  rights  as  agents  revoked.66 
And  Koya  had  already  begun  to  employ  agents  appointed  for  the 
sho  from  among  the  inmates  within  its  monastic  walls.67 


320 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


At  the  same  time,  the  tenures  of  the  plain  holders  of  land  ( ji-shu ) 
had  also  been  modified.68  (1)  Though  still  hereditary  and  alien- 
able,69 they  could  now  be  confiscated  and  their  holders  banished  for 
serious  crimes,70  and  the  landed  interests  wrested  from  them  were 
granted  by  Koya  as  seignior  to  others  in  less  free  tenures.71  (2)  It 
is  significant  that  the  so-called  “name-lands”  ( myd-den ),  many  of 
which  had  presumably  been  small  allodial  areas  reclaimed  by  their 
owners,72  are  now  seen  in  some  instances  to  be  grants  from  the 
seignior.73  ( 3 ) F rom  the  last  half  of  the  thirteenth  century,  a remark- 
ably widespread  tendency  is  noticeable  in  all  the  Koya  sho,  including 
the  triple  sho,  of  many  of  their  constituent  pieces  of  rice  land  that 
had  still  been  held  by  residents  to  be  acquired  through  purchase 
or  mortgage  by  monks  of  the  monastery,  and  then  commended  by 
them  to  Koya 74 — “ for  the  peace  of  the  present,”  as  they  said,  “ and 
the  happiness  of  the  next  life,”  or  “ for  the  extinction  of  the  pash, 
present,  and  future  sins.”  75  Apart  from  these  pious  formulas  it  ii 
not  clear  what  economic  consideration  had  induced  the  monks  so 
commonly  to  have  recourse  to  these  transactions,  unless  we  assume 
that  the  commendation  meant  the  surrender,  in  law,  of  the  title  over 
the  land,  but  in  fact  only  of  a fraction  of  its  profit;  and  that  the 
commending  monk  lost  through  his  act  less  in  income  than  in  the 
freedom  of  his  tenure;  in  other  words,  he  presumably  enjoyed  a 
major  profit  from  the  land  which  was  thenceforth  nominally  a grant 
from  the  seignior.76  At  any  rate,  it  is  plain  that,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  fourteenth  century,  the  tenures  of  land  in  the  triple  sho,  like 
the  rights  of  its  agents,  though  still  normally  transferable  by  heredity 
and  conveyance,  had  become  partly  dependent  on  the  will  of  the 
seignior. 

I infer  that  this  change  had  resulted  not  only  from  the  progress  in 
the  control  of  the  sh5  by  the  monastery  as  lord  that  we  saw  taking 
place  in  the  early  feudal  period,  but  also  from  general  conditions  of 
the  age  for  which  Koya  should  not  be  held  responsible.  Among  these 
may  be  mentioned  the  continued  facility  with  which  rights  and  inter- 
ests relative  to  land  could  still  be  subdivided  and  transferred,  causing 
the  position  of  some  descendants  of  the  original  holders  and  corn- 
menders  of  land  to  be  generally  weakened,  and  affording  opportuni- 
ties to  the  seignior  to  alter  tenures.77  Also  the  prevailing  turbulence 
of  the  time,  from  which  even  the  consecrated  mountain  was  not  free, 
compelled  Koya  to  require  from  chief  members  of  its  sho  a more  fre- 
quent and  extensive  service  at  arms’78  at  the  monastery  than  before; 
these  added  burdens,  together  with  the  increased  financial  obligations 
of  the  period,  may  have  reacted  unfavorably  upon  the  condition  of 
the  landholder.  If  he  had  not  yet  been  obliged  to  forsake  land  alto- 
gether and  turn  a mercenary  warrior,  he  had  been  sorely  tempted  to 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN.  321 

exchange  some  of  his  landed  interests  either  for  lower  tenures  or  for 
ready  cash.79 

Side  by  side  with  the  gradual  alteration  of  the  status  of  the  “ land- 
holder” ( ji-shu ),  wTe  begin  to  observe  that  the  position  of  the  “cul- 
tivator ” ( sahu-nin ) of  the  soil  also  was  slowly  changing,  though  the 
full  meaning  of  both  facts  does  not  become  obvious  until  we  reach  the 
end  of  the  next  period. 

The  history  of  the  status  of  the  J apanese  agricultural  laborer  dur- 
ing the  feudal  ages  would  seem  to  afford  a difficult  but  fruitful  field 
of  study.  Unfortunately,  his  position  during  the  first  feudal  period 
is  extremely  obscure.80  But  was  the  so-called  “ cultivator  ” a laborer  ? 
The  question  would  seem  to  involve  two  points,  his  work  and  his 
status.  First,  as  regards  his  work:  Were  the  “cultivators”  actually 
tillers  of  the  soil?  Whatever  their  original  condition,81  some  of 
them  were,  even  in  the  early  twelfth  century,  hardly  real  toilers 
of  the  glebe ; 82  in  the  first  feudal  ages,  at  least  those  “ cultivators  ” 
whom  we  find  bearing  family  names,  holding  cultivatorships  of 
several  pieces  of  land,  and  even  appearing  at  the  same  time  with  the 
title  of  “ landholders  ” of  these  and  other  pieces,83  would  seem  them- 
selves to  have  been  employers  of  men.84  We  may  safely  infer  that, 
while  some  “cultivators”  were  tillers,  others  were  holders  of  the 
so-called  “right  of  cultivation”  ( saku-shiki ) — another  class  of  real 
rights  that  were  sources  of  profits,  and  were  hereditary,  divisible, 
and  transferable.85  Next,  as  regards  the  status  of  the  “ cultivator  ” : 
In  the  early  feudal  period,  he  held  his  right  under  some  form  of  con- 
trol of  the  “landholder,”  so  that  when  the  land  changed  hands,  the 
“ cultivator’s  ” right  was  liable  to  lapse.86  Soon,  however,  we  find  his 
position  tending  to  become  securer  and  less  dependent.87  At  least  in 
the  triple  sho,  the  “ cultivators  ” appear  even  to  have  been  placed  par- 
tially under  direct  control  of  monastic  agents,  apparently  paying 
dues  to  them 88  as  well  as  to  the  “ landholders  ” 89  of  whom  they  held 
their  tenures.  From  the  early  14th  century,  the  name  of  the  “culti- 
vator ” is  usually  attached  when  a piece  of  land  is  mentioned,  but  that 
of  the  holder  no  longer  appears  as  a rule;  or  sometimes  the  latter’s 
place  is  taken  by  a religious  service  or  some  other  impersonal  matter 
for  which  proceeds  from  the  land  were  devoted.90  It  even  occurs  that 
personal  names  are  given  with  pieces  of  land  without  specification 
either  as  “ landlords  ” or  as  “ cultivators,” 91  leaving  one  to  imagine 
that  they  may  possibly  have  represented  “cultivators”  that  were 
virtually  “ landholders.”  However  that  may  be,  it  is  not  too  much 
to  conclude  that,  at  the  end  of  the  first  feudal  period,  at  least  some 
of  the  “cultivators”  were  not  employed  tillers,  still  less  serfs,  but 
men  who  derived  the  fruit  of  the  soil,  and,  in  the  last  analysis,  bore 
the  whole  burden  of  the  dues  from  it;  they  had  advanced  halfway 
23318°— 19 21 


322 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


toward  the  position  that  the  “landholders”  had  occupied.  Nor  is 
this  strange  when  we  admit  that  the  original  distinction  between  the 
“ cultivator  ” and  the  “ landholder  ” must  have  meant  primarily  a 
differentiation  of  rights  and  profits  ( shiki ) of  land,  rather  than  of 
personal  status  or  even  of  person,  and  also  remember  that  these 
rights  and  profits  were  in  a state  of  flux. 

To  recapitulate  at  this  point:  At  the  close  of  the  first  period  of 
feudal  history,  the  “ landholders  ” and  the  “ cultivators  ” were  drift- 
ing toward  each  other  in  cross  currents  of  social  adjustment,  many  of 
the  formerj.cl3s§"  slowly  losing  the  freedom  of  tenure  and  many  of 
the  latte imis  slowly  gaining  the  real  possession  of  the  soil.  It  is  need- 
less to  repeat  here  that  in  this  evolution  at  least  the  lowering  of  the 
status  of  the  “landholder,”  if  not  the  rise  of  the  “cultivator,”  had 
been  fostered  by  the  seignior  for  his  own  interest;  he  likewise  had 
been  engaged  in  an  effort  to  reduce  officials  of  the  sho  to  greater  sub- 
serviency. The  next  feudal  period  of  Japan  opened  in  the  triple  sho 
in  the  midst  of  this  general  movement,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  gave  it  a 
stronger  impetus  and  carried  it  to  its  consequences. 

III. 

From  the  second  quarter  of  the  fourteenth  century  Japan  entered 
upon  dark  ages  of  a prolonged  civil  strife  and  practical  anarchy  last- 
ing till  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century.  If  we  leave  Koya  for  a 
moment  and  take  a survey  of  the  feudal  Japan  as  a whole,  we  shall 
find  that,  amid  the  utmost  decentralization  that  ensued,  the  period 
witnessed  certain  momentous  changes  taking  place  as  if  by  concert  in 
the  institutional  life  of  the  whole  country.  Among  these  the  most 
important  for  our  present  study  are  two  double  processes,  one  of  them 
begun  earlier  and  now  completed,  and  the  other  noticeable  from  the 
latter  half  of  this  period  and  matured  only  after  1600. 

The  first  of  these  double  movements  may  be  characterized  as  the 
consummation  of  the  feudalization  both  of  the  administrative  agency 
and  of  the  land  tenure  of  Japan.  The  evolution  was  necessarily  long 
and  multifarious,  and  is  still  largely  obscure,  but  the  results  stand 
out  in  bold  outlines.  We  may  well  say  that  the  governmental  appa- 
ratus was  at  last  completely  feudalized  when,  as  we  find  in  1600,  all 
the  sho  under  civil  control 02  and  all  the  public  offices  of  civil  origin 
in  the  provinces98  had  been  annexed  by  groups  of  warriors  held  to- 
gether by  ties  of  vassalage.  Similarly,  it  is  just  to  say  that  land 
tenure  was  finally  feudalized  when  the  conquering  war  lord  assumed 
a free  disposition  of  the  territory  he  had  won  at  the  point  of  his 
sword,  and  reduced  the  multiple  tenures  he  had  found  therein  into 
a nearly  uniform  tenure — a tenure  which,  though  normally  capable 
of  heredity  and  subinfeudation,  was,  under  his  dictatorial  control, 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN.  323 

subject  to  a reinvestiture  at  succession  and  liable  to  confiscation,  and 
entailed  upon  its  tenants  a definite  personal  service  in  arms  toward 
him.94  The  peculiarly  complex  sho,  such  as  we  found  in  the  twelfth 
century,  was  no  more,95  at  least  under  military  control;  the  sh5  had 
been  converted  into  a fief. 

The  year  1600  saw  this  double  transformation  practically  finished ; 
it  witnessed  another  twofold  movement  already  begun  but  still  in- 
complete. This  was,  in  one  aspect,  a growing  differentiation  between 
the  military  and  the  argicultural  classes,  and  in  another  an  increas- 
ing tendency  among  the  latter  to  reverse  the  earlier  custom  of  sub- 
dividing landed  rights  and  interests  ( shiki ) and  to  unify  them  once 
more  with  land  itself.  The  growth  of  a class  of  professional  war- 
riors, many  of  whom  now  lived  near  the  castles  of  the  lords  and  re- 
ceived rice  or  money  instead  of  land  for  the  service  they  offered, 
and  the  consequent  partial  separation  of  arms  from  land90 — these 
phenomena  had  resulted  from  the  continued  and  increasingly  better 
organized  warfare  97  that  had  characterized  the  intervening  period. 
The  peasants  in  the  field  on  their  part  were  becoming  at  once  more 
unprotected,  because  unarmed,  and  freer  in  status  and  in  feeling, 
because  more  independent  of  immediate  military  control,  than  in  the 
earlier  period ; 90  these  conditions  tended  to  make  the  ambitious  lord 
regard  the  peasantry  as  an  object  of  paternal  solicitude,  to  be  at 
once  protected  and  feared.90  And  the  improving  position  of  the  peas- 
ant was  coincident  with  the  progressive  unification  of  real  rights 
and  land,  a tendency  which  he  embraced  and  nursed.  Scarcely  did 
the  seignior  imagine  himself  to  have  succeeded  in  reducing  the 
u landholder  ” into  a dependent  tenant,98  when  the  latter  found  him- 
self on  the  road  to  become  the  practical  owner  of  the  land  which, 
under  the  name  of  a grant  by  favor,  he  in  fact  exploited  and  passed 
on  to  his  heir.99 

It  may  be  presumed  that  these  great  social  changes,  whatever 
their  causes  and  their  exact  processes,  must  have  reacted  upon^an- 
other.  The  increasing  reunion  of  land  and  landed  interests  must 
haV’e  tended  to  strengthen  the  position  of  the  peasant ; and  that  posi- 
tion in  turn  must  have  been  influenced  by  his  growing  freedom  from 
the  proximity  of  warriors ; while  the  partial  liberation  of  the  warrior 
himself  from  the  cares  of  economic  production  must  have  facilitated 
the  feudalization  of  the  governing  machinery  of  the  domains  under 
armed  control.  Nor  might  we  suppose  that  the  simplification  of  the 
sho  and  its  transformation  into  the  fief  were  completed  without  an 
impetus  received  both  from  the  ascendency  of  the  military  nobility 
over  the  civil,  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other,  from  the  consoli- 
dation of  various  interests  of  land  in  the  hands  of  its  holder.  We 
shall  find  in  the  next  period  that  these  changes  not  only  had  together 
brought  the  feudal  development  to  its  culmination,  but  also  had 


324 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


created  forces  tending  to  undermine  the  feudal  structure  of  society. 
We  must  first  observe  how  the  movements  to  which  we  have  alluded 
were  reflected  in  the  triple  sho  during  the  second  period  of  Japanese 
feudal  history. 

It  was  inevitable  that  the  landed  interests  of  the  K5ya  monastery 
during  the  period  of  general  commotion  should,  as  they  did,  suffer 
many  alterations  and  encroachments  ;100  but,  thanks  to  their  religious 
and  immune  character,  the  monastic  sho,  unlike  the  civil  sh5,  held 
their  own,  on  the  whole,  recovering  many  of  their  losses  and  Weather- 
ing the  storm  as  best  they  could.  If  the  truth  must  be  told,  both  the 
sh5  and  the  monastery  on  the  mountain  were  armed  not  altogether 
inadequately  and  not  always  for  purely  defensive  ends.101  What 
must  we  think  when  we  are  told  that  about  1580  Koya  held  posses- 
sions much  more  extensive  than  it  ever  had  or  has  held,102  and  that 
its  warriors  defied  and  for  a time  defeated  an  army  of  the  suzerain 
of  half  feudal  Japan? 103 

As  regards  our  triple  sho,  the  documents  relative  to  its  changes  in 
this  period  are  regrettably  few,  but,  along  with  the  examples  of  other 
monastic  domains,  give  us  a sufficient  ground  to  infer  that  much  of 
the  social  evolution  enacted  abroad  repeated  itself  here. 

The  historic  effort  of  the  monastery  to  increase  its  seigniorial  con- 
trol over  the  various  tenures  and  tenants  of  the  sho  seems  now  to 
have  been  well  nigh  consummated.  At  last  all  the  officials  of  the  shd 
were  treated  by  Koya  as  employed  agents  at  once  hereditary  and 
precarious,104  rather  than  as  representatives  of  the  peasants.105  Even 
when  warriors  had  encroached  upon  the  sho  and  wrung  from  the 
monastery  a grudging  recognition  for  a time  as  petty  seigniors,106 
Koya  recovered  its  control  of  the  affected  districts  at  the  first  oppor- 
tunity, and  thereafter  treated  the  intruders  who  remained  as  de- 
pendent agents.107  The  “ name-lands  ” ( myd-den ) had  changed 
hands,  and  many  of  them  had  been  annexed  by  Koya,  and  granted  to 
its  agents.  The  title  “name- [land]  holder”  ( myd-shu ) had  been 
given  to  minor  officials  of  the  sho  who  were  not  always  actual  holders 
of  this  species  of  landl^In  many,  perhaps  in  all,  instances  the  very 
peasants  were  regarded  as  holders  of  granted  titles;  that  is,  as  pre- 
carious thought  hereditary.^8 

These  marks  of  the  added  authority  which  Koya  as  seignior 
thought  to  have  gained  were,  however,  offset  by  more  substantial 
changes  that  had  been  silently  taking  place  from  below.  The  uni- 
fication of  land  and  landed  interests,  to  which  I have  alluded  in  re- 
gard to  the  feudal  domains,  manifested  itself  in  Koya  sho,  as  perhaps 
in  other  parts  of  Japan,  in  a signal  progress  of  the  equalization  of 
status  between  “landholders”  and  “cultivators”  that  had  begun 
earlier.  This  social  evolution  is  epitomized  in  certain  historic  terms 
that  designated  the  changing  social  classes.  The  old  term  hyaku - 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN. 


325 


sho109  (bearers  of  family  names),  'which  represented,  in  ancient 
times,  free  taxable  citizens,110  but,  in  the  twelfth  to  early  fourteenth 
century,  the  class  of  landholders,  including  the  local  chiefs  upon 
whom  devolved  the  duty  of  defending  the  sho  and  the  monastery,  and 
assisting  in  the  administration  of  the  former,111  was  now  seen  again 
to  be  changing  its  meaning.  In  the  -period  of  civil  war  the 
term  was  beginning  to  be  applied,  as  it  invariably  was  after 
1600,  to  peasants  pure  and  simple,  dissociated  from  armed  serv- 
ice and  depending  upon  the  seignior  and  his  agents  for  sheer 
protection  and  no  longer  bearing  even  family  names.112  At  the 
same  time  both  the  terms  “landholder”  and  “cultivator”  had 
also  changed  their  signification.  The  landholder  (now  the  same 
characters  ji-shu  being  pronounced  ji-nushi)  was  a hyaku-sho 
possessing  a free  title  over  plants  of  land,  which  were  no  longer 
burdened  with  subtle  division  of  rights  and  relations,  and  paying 
regular  dues  upon  them;  he  had  become,  all  but  in  name,  a plain 
landowner.  The  term  “cultivator”  ( saku-nin ) denoted  more  and 
more  commonly  a relatively  small  113  class  of  free  tenants  who  rented 
lands  owned  by  others  and  paid  to  them  the  economic  rent ; 114  they 
appear  neither  as  the  institutional  descendants  of  the  old  “ culti- 
vators” nor  as  serfs,  but  rather  as  regular  tenant  farmers  such  as 
would  come  into  being  without  special  antecedents.  I do  not  forget 
that  neither  the  old  hyaku-sho  nor  the  old  “cultivators”  had  been 
a simple  class,  but  each  had  comprised  several  grades  of  status;115 
what  seems  likely  is  that  the  grades  in  each  class  had  now  drifted 
apart,  and  some  of  the  former  two  classes  coalesced  in  a new  social 
alignment.  In  other  words,  it  is  probable  that  if  some  of  the  “ cul- 
tivators ” had  remained  as  or  become  free  tenants  others  had  risen 
to  the  status  of  the  better  hyaku-sho ; the  “ landholders  ” were  like- 
wise differentiated  between  those  who  had  been  joined  by  the  risen 
“ cultivators,”  no  longer  so  designated,  and  those  that  had  turned 
professional  warriors  or  their  retainers,  they  either  remaining  in  the 
shd,  boasting  their  family  names  and  living  the  lives  of  petty  lords,112 
or  perhaps  more  frequently  toward  the  end  of  the  period  having  left 
the  soil  and  attached  themselves  to  barons.  The  old  terminology 
persisted  but  represented  changed  realities.  The  new  composite 
hyaku-sho , including  peasant  proprietors  and  tenants,  would  seem  to 
have  formed  the  bulk  of  the  new  rural  class,  with  the  absent  seignior 
above  and  the  hired  farm  hands 116  below  them.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  old  “ cultivator  ” and  the  old  “ landholder,”  117  like  the 
earlier  difference  between  the  relatively  free  commender  and  the 
relatively  precarious  grantee,  and  like  the  sho  itself  whose  inhabitants 
they  all  had  been,  had  passed  into  history. 

As  we  complete  our  survey  of  the  second  feudal  period,  let  us  ask 
ourselves,  How  much  did  the  changes  in  the  sho  reflect  those  of  the 


326 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


feudal  Japan  to  which  we  referred?  What  was  common  to  both 
and  what  was  the  difference  between  them?  These  questions,  are 
elusive.  We  may  say  that  the  increased  seigniorial  control,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  new  social  alignment,  on  the  other,  were  due  to  the 
natural  effort  made  by  the  monastery  and  by  the  peasants  to  advance 
their  respective  interest  in  the  midst  of  the  general  tendencies  in 
which  the  whole  of  Japan  had  been  involved;  namely,  the  separation 
of  arms  from  land  and  the  coming  together  of  the  landed  interests 
that  had  ramified.  Behind  these  tendencies  we  can  not  for  the  pres- 
ent try  to  penetrate.  While  we  grant  to  this  extent  the  community 
of  institutional  life  between  our  sho  and  the  outside  world,  we  must 
also  admit  that  there  was  an  important  difference  between  them : the 
Koya  sho,  religious  and  not  civil  in  character  as  it  was,  escaped 
a military  conquest  and  so  escaped  a feudalization  of  its  adminis- 
trative organs ; again,  the  sho,  having  never  been  wholly 118  annexed 
by  a great  baron  or  brought  into  a feudal  relation  with  him,  was 
never  converted  into  a fief  in  the  technical  sense.  Only  the  general 
simplification  of  its  tenures  that  the  monastery  seemed  to  have 
effected  may  be  said  to  connote  a sufficient  will  on  the  part  of  the 
seignior  that,  had  he  been  a military  lord  thrown  in  the  vortex  of  a 
struggle  for  ascendency,  would  have  turned  the  sho  into  a fief ; it  was 
only  the  religious  character  of  the  seignior  that  prevented  that 
outcome.  It  might,  therefore,  be  said  that  the  very  failure  of  the 
sho  to  be  feudalized  indicates  the  chief  cause  of  the  success  of  that 
development  in  the  military  domains;  that  is,  the  dictatorial  power 
of  the  war  lord  who  took  land  with  one  hand  and  gave  it  with  the 
other.  Finally,  we  suggest  that  the  common  nature  of  the  influences 
to  which  the  triple  sho  and  the  military  fiefs  were  exposed  in  this 
period  is  further  demonstrated  by  the  common  destiny  which,  as  we 
shall  see,  overtook  them  all  in  the  next  period. 

IV. 

The  third  and  last  period  of  Japan’s  feudal  history — 1600-1868 — 
may  be  dismissed  with  a few  words.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
during  the  preceding  centuries  the  feudalization  of  the  local  Gov- 
ernment and  the  land  tenure  of  Japan  as  a whole  was  completed,  and 
the  separation  of  land  and  arms  and  the  reunion  of  land  and  landed 
interests  began.  A little  reflection  will  show  that,  if  these  move- 
ments operating  together  carried  to  its  consummation  the  feudal 
organization  of  Japanese  society,  they  would,  as  they  did,  also  create 
conditions  subversive  of  it ; for  no  regime  could  remain  purely  feudal, 
if  its  peasants  were  too  free,  and  if  too  many  of  its  warriors  were 
detached  from  land.  And  yet  these  conditions  were  not  only  fully 
recognized,  but  also  greatly  extended,  in  the  remarkable  government 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN.  327 

that  the  Tokugawa  suzerains  erected  in  the  early  seventeeth  century ; 
they,  in  their  own  domains,  deliberately  increased  the  number  of 
landless,  stipendiary  warriors,  and  gave  a generous  measure  of  self- 
government  to  the  peasant  communities,  making  them  the  foundation 
of  the  economic  and  financial  life  of  the  new  regime.  And  the  ex- 
ample was  largely  copied  by  the  barons  in  their  respective  domains. 
Moreover,  the  suzerain,  having  at  last  unified  all  Japan  torn  for 
centuries  by  civil  war,  extended  to  his  rule  of  the  whole  the  principles 
of  feudal  government  and  feudal  land  tenure  that  had  been  estab- 
lished separately  in  its  parts;  he  regarded  the  entire  realm  as  a vast 
domain,  as  it  were,  with  its  control  centralized  as  far  as  was  prac- 
ticable in  his  council  at  Edo ; carved  the  area  into  feudatories,  many 
of  them  arbitrarily,  and  assigned  them,  under  the  name  han ,119  to 
his  barons  as  fiefs  held  of  him.  The  result  was  a regime  in  which 
were  combined  and  balanced  with  great  care  both  feudal  and  non- 
feudal  elements  of  society,  and  centralizing  and  decentralizing  ten- 
dencies and  forces  of  government.  This  is  the  regime  that,  despite 
the  comparative  inferiority  of  its  later  rulers,  held  sway  over  Japan 
till  1867. 

We  finally  return  to  the  Koya  sho  to  observe  its  institutional 
position  in  this  last  of  the  feudal  periods.  We  shall  not  linger  to 
tell  how  the  tyrant  Hideyoshi  had  crushed  for  all  time,  as  it  proved, 
the  armed  power  of  the  monastery  and  curtailed  its  landed  pos- 
sessions.120 Entering  the  new  era  in  this  attenuated  state,  the  Koya 
monastery  was  regarded  by  the  Tokugawa  suzerain  virtually  as  on 
a par  with  the  barons,  and  its  domains  were  collectively  treated 
as  a fief121  held  of  him.  As  a species  of  baron,  K5ya  gave  its 
fealty  to  the  successive  suzerains  at  Edo  and  rendered  them  annual 
tributes.  As  a fief,  the  Koya  domains  were  formally  reinvested  to 
the  monastery  by  each  suzerain  at  his  accession  to  power.122  In  a 
word,  Koya  was  autonomous  in  the  administration  of  its  own  af- 
fairs, but  dependent  upon  Tokugawa  as  overlord.  Interesting  as 
this  period  is,  therefore,  it  is  less  significant  for  our  study  than  the 
preceding  ages.  The  triple  sho  of  Kono-Makuni-Sarukawa  was  no 
longer  triple,  but  was  separated  into  four  mutually  unrelated  sho 
with  shifted  boundaries;  nor  was  each  of  the  four  sho,  though  still 
retaining  that  name,  anything  more  than  a collective  name  of  units 
called  mura , which  were  self-governing  communities  of  hyaku- 
sAd,123  comprising  no  “name-lands,”  no  fortresses,  and  no  warriors 
rendering  military  service.  The  life  of  the  district  as  a real  sh5 
had  long  ceased  to  be ; what  had  survived  was  its  name  retained  for 
an  altogether  altered  institution. 

1 F.  Brinkley,  “A  History  of  the  Japanese  People,”  New  York  and  London,  1915,  pp. 
251-252,  270.  See  also  James  Murdock,  “ A History  of  Japan,”  Tokyo,  1910,  I,  213, 
228,  ff. 


328 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION, 


2 This  contrast  is  drawn  between  the  full-grown  manor  and  sh5,  both,  say,  of  the 
twelfth  century.  It  need  not  be  noted  that  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries  there  were 
in  southern  France  domains  in  which  holdings  were  irregular  and,  with  their  tenants’ 
houses,  isolated  and  scattered  over  the  estate.  See  Seignobos’s  chapter,  “ Le  regime 
fSodal,”  in  Lavisse  and  Rambaud’s  “ Histoire  ggngrale,”  II,  5. 

3 For  a fuller  discussion,  the  reader  is  referred  to  my  article,  “ The  Origin  of  the 
Feudal  Land  Tenure  in  Japan,”  in  the  American  Historical  Review  for  October,  1914 
(XX,  no.  1),  pp.  1-23. 

4 When  there  are  both  pasture  and  rice  land,  a communal  form  of  management  which 
is  expedient  for  the  pasture  may  tend  to  retard  the  development  of  individual  ownership 
even  in  the  rice  fields,  as  seems  to  be  the  case  in  some  parts  of  Java.  In  Japan,  on 
the  contrary,  pasture  has  not  existed  within  historic  times ; the  race  has  not  depended 
on  sheep  and  cattle  for  material  for  clothing  and  food,  cotton  and  grass  cloths  being 
used  for  raiment,  and  the  numerous  streams  and  the  north  ocean  currents  supplying  an 
abundance  of  fish ; bulls  and  cows  used  in  husbandry  have  been  few,  and,  though  peasants 
have  commonly  kept  horses,  they  as  a rule  were  not  left  in  the  field  to  graze,  but  kept 
in  stables  while  unemployed ; there  they  were  made  to  tread  grass  into  manure ; sufficient 
fodder  was  found  by  the  wayside  or  in  non-arable  lands.  This  last  condition  precluded 
the  need  of  reserving  extensive  meadows. 

The  practical  absence  of  meadows  and  pastures  has  formed  one  of  the  great  peculiari- 
ties of  Japanese  economic  life  and  has  produced  far-reaching  results.  Not  only  was  the 
development  of  individual  ownership  of  rice  land,  and  then  of  other  kinds  of  lands, 
thereby  stimulated,  but  also  the  people  were  enabled  to  utilize  a telatively  gi’eater  part 
of  the  arable  land  for  cultivation,  and  to  maintain  a larger  population  than  would  be 
possible  in  a half-farming  and  half-grazing  country.  Minor  yet  important  effects  might 
be  traced  in  a variety  of  ways. 

* The  predominant  place  occupied  by  the  rice  culture  in  Japan’s  agriculture  constitutes 
its  second  chief  characteristic.  Its  effects  on  the  institutional  life  of  the  nation  can 
hardly  be  exaggerated  ; it  at  least  fashioned  the  life  of  the  sho  from  its  very  birth  and 
in  all  its  ramifications.  These  and  other  effects  would  merit  a careful  analysis.  Among 
the  minor  effects  I may  refer  to  the  fact  that,  because  of  the  use  of  rice,  both  as  the 
staple  food  and  as  the  material  for  brewing  sake,  there  has  been  no  necessity  of  reserving 
vineyards ; also,  rice  being  used  in  grain,  the  mill  has  not  played  in  Japanese  social 
history  the  part  it  has  in  Europe. 

• About  the  Irrigation  and  the  intensive  nature  of  the  rice  culture,  see  the  article 
“ Influence  of  geographical  conditions  upon  Japanese  agriculture,”  by  Miss  E.  C.  Semple, 
in  the  Geographical  Journal  for  December,  1912. 

7 If  we  bear  in  mind  the  intensive  nature  of  the  cultivation  of  rice  in  irrigable  lowlands 
and  the  comparatively  high  value  of  the  product,  and  also  remember  the  absence  of 
pastures  and  meadows,  we  shall  be  able  to  see  why  the  relatively  small  area  of  the  arable 
land  in  Japan  admitted  a relatively  dense  population ; we  may  also  understand  why  rice 
fields  were,  and  needed  to  be,  small. 

It  is  not  unlikely  that  during  the  feudal  ages  the  general  tendency  with  rice  fields  was 
to  become  smaller,  both  for  more  effective  culture  and  for  readier  division  of  rights. 
However  that  may  be,  the  very  first  fields  must  have  been  diminutive  enough.  The 
following  instances  are  taken  from  among  the  sho  belonging  to  the  monastex-y  of  Mount 
Koya.  In  1136,  78  plots  showed  an  average  of  IS  acres  ; in  1273,  18  plots  averaged 
0.27  acre  ; and  in  1424,  1020  plots  averaged  0.23  acre.  In  the  last  instances,  plots  larger 
than  0.6  acre  and  those  smaller  than  0.05  acre  were  few,  the  large  majority,  896  plots, 
being  between  the  two.  Ko-ya  san  mon-zho,  III,  358-386,  V,  356-389,  486-8.  It  will 
probably  be  possible  some  day  to  show  that  the  diminutive  size  of  rice  fields  in  Japan 
was  responsible  for  many  of  the  characteristics  of  the  history  of  the  sho. 

8 Some  charters  date  as  early  as  950.  Most  early  charters  seem  to  have  been  issued 
by  the  provincial,  not  the  imperial,  government.  See  Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  I,  270-299. 

•The  division  of  land  itself  (shita-ji,  as  it  would  be  called  in  old  Japanese),  rather 
than  of  interests  and  rights  relative  to  land  (shiki),  practised  in  the  peasant  holdings  in 
medieval  France,  is  considered  by  Seignobos  as  one  of  the  causes  of  their  consisting  in 
narrow  strips.  Lavisse  and  Rambaud,  op.  cit.,  II,  8. 

10  T%t  ^ resident  of  one  shd  could  have  a right  over  a piece  of  land  in  another  sh5 
and  cultivate  it ; the  nonresident  holder  or  cultivator  was  obliged  to  pay  his  usual  dues 
to  the  sho  in  which  he  exercised  his  rights.  K6-ya  san  mon-zho,  I,  508. 

11 A Japanese  critic  of  the  article  mentioned  in  note  3 above  was  oblivious  of  the 
fundamental  difference  between  the  sho  and  the  fief  and  other  institutional  problems  of 
prime  importance.  See  Shi-gaku  zasshi,  XXVI,  378-379  ; my  reply,  ibid.,  776-780. 

12  Kobo  (posthumous  name  of  Kukai),  774-835,  on  his  return  from  China  in  807, 
established  the  mystic  ritualism  of  Shingon  Buddhism.  The  imposing,  mysterious  per- 
formances of  the  sect,  reinforced,  as  they  were,  by  the  priest’s  extraordinary  versatility 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN 


329 


and  winsome  character,  fascinated  and  captivated  the  Court.  He  also  entered  deeply 
into  the  hearts  of  the  common  people  of  all  subsequent  ages  through  his  many  travels, 
his  artistic  activity,  and  his  founding  of  the  Koya  monastery,  which  has  been  a Mecca 
of  Buddhist  pilgrimage. 

13  Published  between  1904  and  1907  under  the  title,  Ko  ya  san  mon  zho  (hereinafter 
abbreviated  as  Koya),  8 vols.,  in  the  great  series  Dai  Ni-hon  ko-mon  zho,  edited  by  the 

t Historiographic  Institute  of  the  Imperial  University  of  Tokyo.  I suspect  that  the  mon- 
astery must  possess  unpublished  documents  not  reproduced  in  this  series.  The  Ki-i  no 
kuni  zoku  fu-do  ki  (hereinafter  abbreviated  as  Ki),  compiled  c.  1808-1839  by  Niida  Yoshi- 
furu  and  others  in  192  chapters  (printed  in  five  large  volumes  in  1910-1911)  contains 
some  hundreds  of  documents  of  the  Koya  sho  not  included  in  the  published  cartulary.  The 
v documents  relating  strictly  to  the  triple  sho  alone  in  these  two  works  number  about  130. 

14  San-dai  zhitsu-roku,  chap.  29  (Koku-shi  tai-kei,  IV,  432). 

16  Such  as  the  Mandokoro,  Arakawa,  and  Minabe  sho. 

10  Such  as  parts  of  the  Adegawa  sho  and  of  our  triple  sho. 

17 1 think  that  this  theory  should  explain  many  an  act  of  the  monastery  towards 
its  freer  sho.  Its  powers  as  seignior  were  specially  ample  in  the  granted  Mandokoro 
sho,  already  in  1125  (see  Koya,  VII,  266-268),  which  must  have  served  as  a model 
in  the  treatment  of  the  other  sho.  See  notes  26,  39,  and  43  below. 

18  The  exact  size  of  the  triple  sho,  which  must  have  continued  to  increase  even 

after  the  annexation  of  Sarukawa  in  the  thirteenth  century,  is  stated  nowhere  in  the 
documents.  When  we  remember  that  the  life  of  a sho  as  a terrain  was  built  upon 
its  cultivated  area,  it  is  not  strange  that  its  value  should  usually  be  expressed,  as 
it  was,  in  terms  of  its  productivity  measured  in  rice,  not  of  its  lineal  extent.  About 
1830,  when  the  extent  of  what  had  before  been  the  triple  sho  may  be  presumed  to 
have  reached  its  utmost,  the  total  productivity  of  all  kinds  of  tilled  land  comprised 
in  this  area  was  rated  as  5,027  koku  (about  25,000  bushels)  of  hulled  rice,  produced 
by  5,413  members  of  1,245  families.  Taking  the  average  yield  of  a Ssho  as  8 koku  (or 
about  15  bushels  per  acre),  5,027  koku  would  represent  a total  of  628  Ssho  (about  1,550 
acres),  which  should  be  regarded  as  a very  rough  estimate  for  a very  late  date. 

Some  idea  of  the  range  of  the  sizes  of  early  sho  may  be  gained  from  the  following 
data  from  the  domains  of  the  temple  at  Iwashimidzu.  In  1072,  of  the  34  sh5  that  were 

enumerated,  the  smallest  included  about  20  acres  of  tilled  area,  and  the  largest 

% about  100  acres.  Larger  sho  seem  to  have  contained  waste  or  wooded  land,  and 

therefore  can  not  be  used  for  comparison.  Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  I,  270-299.  In  an 
undated  list  of  104  sho  in  Kyushu,  the  smallest  measured  15  acres,  and  there  was 
another  less  than  30  acres ; the  largest  had  more  than  2,400  acres,  which  was  ex- 
ceptional, the  second  covering  but  390  acres ; and  there  were  two  more  sho  that  com- 
♦ prised  300  acres  each.  (Ibid.,  II,  141-147.) 

To  return  to  the  triple  sho,  each  of  its  three  component  sho  seems  always  to  have 
bad  its  administrative  offices  at  the  “ sho-house  ” (corresponding  to  the  French  in- 
tendant’s  house  or  the  German  Frohnhof),  but  at  no  time  was  there  any  central 
bureau  for  the  triple  district  as  a whole. 

The  triple  sho  happened  to  possess  a central  market  place  in  Kono,  at  least  since 
the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century  (Koya,  IV,  636),  where  later  regular  fairs  occurred 
six  times  annually.  Kono  was  otherwise  most  populous,  producing  cotton  and  paper 
besides  rice ; Makunl  was  probably  the  most  sterile.  Economically,  the  triple  skS 
was  hardly  self-sufficient,  and  the  market  served  as  a distributing  center  not  only 
for  this  but  also  for  neighboring  sh5. 

Each  part  of  the  triple  sh5  consisted  of  rural  districts  which  were  called  mura, 
at  least  in  the  third  feudal  period,  some  40  in  all,  about  1830.  Each  mura,  sup- 
ported Shinto  and  Buddhist  shrines  and  temples,  their  total  number  for  the  entire 
region,  about  1830,  being  70  ordinary  and  140  smaller  ones  for  a population  of 
5,400.  Each  sho  had  its  chief  shrine  and  temple.  The  burden  of  these  religious 
institutions  was  less  formidable  than  their  number  would  lead  us  to  suppose,  for  most 
of  them  were  tiny  shrines  by  the  wayside  or  on  hilltops,  unattended  by  priests,  and 
costing  hardly  anything  for  maintenance.  The  annual  festivals  at  these  houses,  not 
only  in  the  triple  sho,  but  in  all  districts  in  rural  Japan,  were  days  of  gathering  and 
diversion  that  played  an  important  part  in  the  social  life  of  the  people. 

There  were,  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  the  time,  public  bathhouses.  They 
are  seen  as  early  as  1271.  Koya,  I,  506,  VII,  194. 

See  Ki,  I,  784-786,  823-827,  846-865. 

19  Of  the  Osa  (or  Naga?)  family,  who  claimed  relation  to  the  great  Taira  clan. 
See  Ki,  V,  243.  Members  of  this  family  are  seen  among  chief  residents  and  officers 
of  the  sho,  at  least  till  the  early  fourteenth  century.  Koya,  VII,  197,  229,  233,  237- 
240,  etc. 

80  Ki,  V,  243.  Also  Koya,  VII,  229. 


330 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION, 


81  Koya,  VII,  230. 

22  All  these  conditions  are  explicitly  stated  in  the  ex-Emperor’s  charter  establishing  the 
sho  in  1143  ; Koya,  VII,  229-232.  This  is  one  of  the  most  complete  specimens  of  char- 
ters of  this  class. 

23  The  titles  ry5-ke  and  adzukari-dakoro  are  explicit  in  the  charter,  hut  that  of  hon-sho 

Is  inferential.  « 

24  Koya,  VIII,  384. 

26  In  1164,  1177,  1179,  etc.,  Koya,  VII,  179,  232,  235-236,  etc. 

20  Probably  also  by  applying  to  this  commended  shd  the  example  of  the  granted  Mando- 
koro  sho,  over  whose  men  Koya  had  been  exercising  a direct  control.  See  Koya,  II, 
546-558,  VII,  266-268. 

27  Koya,  VII,  178. 

28  In  1175,  to  the  monastery  on  Mount  Yoshino,  Koya,  VII,  234,  a good  example  of  a 
letter  of  commendation.  Yoshino  did  not  succeed  in  tightening  its  hold  upon  the  sho, 
and  its  influence  was  in  the  course  of  a few  years  completely  overshadowed  by  that 
of  Koya. 

29  This  is  inferred  from  documents  about  1176  and  of  1199.  Koya,  I,  581,  VII,  236— 
237.  The  letter  of  commendation  has  not  been  preserved. 

80  See  Note  19,  above. 

31  Ki,  V.  124,  128,  135  (cited  in  a document  of  1333)  ; Adzuma-kagami,  bk.  7,  edition 
Kikkawa,  I,  161 ; Koya,  I,  369,  VII,  181-182,  VIII,  23-24. 

82  In  1184,  Adzuma-kagami,  bk.  3,  edition  Kikkawa,  I,  90-91 ; Koya,  I,  449. 

33  The  sole  evidence  for  these  claims  that  Koya  could  advance  was  an  account  of  the 
founding  of  the  monastery  and  instructions  to  the  disciples  said  to  be  autographic  com- 
pilations made  in  834  by  the  founder,  Kobo  (Ki,  V,  113-115  ; K6-b§  dai-shi  zen-shu,  I, 
769—780),  but  their  authenticity,  though  not  the  veracity  of  Kobo,  was  questioned  even 
by  the  pious  imperial  court,  in  1219  and  1334  (see  Ki,  V,  46,  136).  The  very  improbabil- 
ity of  some  of  the  place  names  and  of  the  stories  of  the  deity  and  the  Emperor  Ojin  is 
apparent.  The  documents  of  740  and  816,  that  are  often  adduced  to  support  the  claims, 
exist  only  in  alleged  citations  in  the  account  of  834,  referred  to  above.  If  the  official 
grant  of  816  were  genuine,  the  possessions  of  Koya  in  876  could  not  be  so  small  as  they 
were  (see  Note  14,  above)  ; nor  could  the  monastery  so  completely  forget,  as  it  did,  its 
claims  till  the  latter  part  of  the  twelfth  century.  See  next  note. 

34 1 have  not  yet  discovered  any  authentic  document  earlier  than  1177  (Koya,  VII, 
178)  in  which  Koya  appealed  to  its  “ ancient  domain.”  The  one  dated  early  in  1048 
(Ki,  V,  269)  I regard  as  spurious.  From  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  however,  appeals 
are  common  (e.  g.,  in  1199:  Koya,  VII,  236;  in  1218:  Ki,  V,  119;  etc.).  Between  1331 
and  1354  Koya’s  title  over  it  was  repeatedly  confirmed  by  the  civil  and  feudal  govern- 
ments (ibid.,  136-140)  ; in  1584,  by  the  suzerain  Hideyoshi  (ibid.,  146). 

35  Documents  of  1199,  Koya,  VII,  236-240  ; of  1221,  ibid.,  I,  292  ; Ki,  V,  128  ; and  of 
1280,  Koya,  VII,  259. 

36  A list  in  1285  of  the  districts  included  in  the  “ ancient  domain  ” gives  34,  of  which 
the  triple  sho  is  counted  as  three.  Ki,  V,  130-131. 

37  Koya,  VIII,  393-396  ; Ki,  V,  119. 

88  Direct  control  over  a piece  of  land  was  designated  as  ichi-yen  chi-gyo  (i.  e.,  complete 
control).  This  has  been  erroneously  identified  by  some  Japanese  scholars  with  the 
possession  of  shita-ji  (i.  e.,  the  soil).  The  latter  was  the  actual  use  and  enjoyment  of 
soil,  while  the  former  apparently  meant  a complete  right  over  the  dues  from  the  land, 
which  was  used  by  the  tenants  paying  the  dues  ; this  point  is  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
a grant  in  1270  of  a half  of  an  ichi-yen  chi-gyo  in  the  triple  sho  was  in  reality  a cession 
of  one-half  of  the  taxes  of  the  district.  Koya,  VII,  198,  259  ; cf.  246,  253,  VIII, 
128,130. 

89  To  cite  instances  only  within  the  triple  sho.  An  entire  mura  in  Makuni,  which  had 
not  been  commended,  was  given  in  fief  by  Koya  to  a body  of  religious  servants,  Koya,  I, 
501.  Ogawa  and  Saime  mura  were  considered  as  “ land  of  ichi-yen  chi-gyo  ” by  Koya 
(Ki,  V,  48)  ; it  commanded  their  inhabitants  to  swear  fealty  to  itself  (Koya,  VII,  185), 
and  allowed  monastic  servants  to  settle  here,  who  were  naturally  under  its  direct  con- 
trol. Ibid.,  VII,  247. 

40  Despite  the  transfer  of  the  title  sometime  before  1183  to  the  abbot  of  the  Takawo 
monastery,  and  despite  the  lapse  of  the  title  in  1199  occasioned  by  his  fall.  Ki,  V,  124 ; 
Koya,  VII,  236. 

41  Residents  of  the  sh5  so  styled  Koya  in  1199.  Koya,  VII,  236.  In  1221,  the  fallen 
ex-emperor’s  family  exercised  a shadowy  control  over  the  use  of  the  income  of  the  sho 
(ibid.,  I,  294;  VIII,  387),  but  even  that  soon  passed  away.  In  fact,  in  the  same  year, 
the  monastic  lordship  of  the  sho  was  recognized  by  the  imperial  government.  Ibid.,  I, 
29L 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN, 


331 


43  An  imperial  order  of  1221  and  a feudal  order  of  1227.  Koya,  I,  291-292,  295; 

VII,  253. 

43  The  immunity  from  the  visitation  of  feudal  stewards  (ji-to)  was  claimed  and  granted 
in  1228  for  the  triple  sho,  as  for  other  sh6  of  Koya.  Koya,  VII,  181-182,  253.  In  1271 
officers  of  the  same  sho  were  made  to  swear,  among  other  things,  that  they  would,  as 
in  other  monastic  sho,  resist  the  intrusion  of  the  military  constable’s  (shu-go)  agents. 
Ibid.,  I,  507.  When  the  shu-go  demanded  the  delivery  of  incendiaries  resident  in 
Makuni,  the  order  was  not  complied  with.  Ibid.,  VII,  224. 

44  The  date  of  the  commendation  of  Sarukawa  can  not  be  determined.  See  the  next 
note. 

45  Although  the  term  “ triple  sh5  ” (san  ga  sho)  is  not  met  with  in  the  documents 
before  1276  (Koya,  VII,  187-192),  the  reality  of  the  grouping  of  the  three  sho  as  a 
composite  one  may  be  traced  back  at  least  to  1254.  Ibid.,  I,  217-220  ; VI,  308-309. 
Later  use  of  the  term  is  common  (e.  g.,  1425;  ibid.,  IV,  445). 

As  a matter  of  fact,  the  word  sho  is  often  used  carelessly  even  for  parts  of  regular 
sho,  a fact  that  betrays  the  private  origin  of  this  institution  ; e.  g.,  Ishibashiri  mura, 
which  appears  in  1294  as  a sho  (ibid.,  IV,  636),  and  again  a mura  in  1303  (VII,  254), 
and  Ogawa  and  Saime  mura,  called  a sho  in  1333  (VII,  246,  253)  ; the  latter  becomes 
a real  sho  only  later  in  the  14th  century  (I,  410). 

48  In  947  by  a Kunimagi  Ki,  I,  863. 

47  There  is  a letter  of  conveyance  from  father  to  son,  dated  1025.  Ki,  I,  863.  The 
Kunimagi  appear  in  the  triple  sho  among  its  chief  holders  till  the  end  of  twelfth  cen- 
tury. Koya,  VII,  233,  238-239.  The  Sarukawa  family,  whose  names  occur  as  com- 
mendors  as  late  as  the  fourteenth  century,  may  be  of  the  same  blood.  Koya,  II,  226  ; 

VIII,  483. 

48  The  personal  names  of  those  landholders  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century  who  had 
not  assumed  Buddhist  names  (Koya,  III,  366-386)  betray  the  gentility  of  their  owners. 
When  their  family  names,  too,  are  given,  the  aristocratic  origin  of  many  of  them 
is  unmistakable.  Ibid.,  I,  217-220  ; VI,  308-309  ; VII,  233,  237-240  ; Ki,  V,  43.  A list 
of  1185  for  Mandokoro  sho  gives  288  names,  of  which  94  bore  Buddhist  names  and  194 
belonged  to  53  families,  including  the  most  illustrious  in  history.  Koya,  II,  547-559. 
The  presence  in  the  triple  sho  of  some  of  these  families  may  be.  traced  for  centuries  ; 
some  in  the  thirteenth  century  had  so  far  identified  their  interest  with  the  districts  in 
which  they  lived  as  to  have  taken  the  names  of  the  latter  as  names  of  their  own  branches 
of  the  larger  families.  E.  g.,  ibid.,  I,  220  ; II,  226  ; III,  538-539,  etc. 

It  is  quite  likely  that  the  practice  which  became  notable  in  later  ages  among  local 
warriors  of  assuming  noble  descent  on  slight  or  no  grounds  may  already  have  begun 
in  this  period.  It  would,  however,  be  strange  if  many  of  the  claims  for  high  birth  were 
not  still  well  founded,  for  older  official  records  abound  with  instances  of  persons  of  im- 
perial or  noble  ancestry  who  had  settled  in  the  provinces.  As  a matter  of  fact,  these 
persons  of  real  or  pretended  nobility  were  to  be  found  among  chief  residents  in  all  parts 
of  Japan,  and  constituted  a main  source  of  the  feudal  warriors. 

43  Acts  of  bequeathing  “private  estates  in  hereditary  succession”  (sen-zo  so-den  no 
shi-ryo)  by  these  men  are  frequently  met  with.  Ki,  I,  863 ; Koya,  III,  556 ; etc. 
Though  usually  the  holdings,  specially  of  rice  land,  were  small  (e.  g.,  in  1218  rice  land 
held  by  108  men  in  Ota  sho  averaging  less  than  5 acres,  Koya,  VIII,  592-597),  every 
list  contains  larger  holders  ; in  1164  the  largest  among  the  46  men  that  are  mentioned 
being  45  acres  of  mulberry  fields  in  46  plots,  and  in  1218  a tenant  of  41  acres  of  rice 
fields  being  first  among  108  holders.  Ibid.,  and  III,  366-386.  About  1090  a resident 
of  Mandokoro  controlled  some  250  acres  (VII,  267),  probably  inclusive  of  uncultivated 
land.  It  would  be  impossible,  as  said  a proprietor  in  1064,  properly  to  manage  a large 
holding,  when  it  was  in  actual  possession,  without  dependent  laborers  ; he  would  rather 
commend  it  to  a seignior  (Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  I,  299).  Cf.  Note  116  below. 

60  Most  of  the  men,  including  even  the  secular  shavelings  (nyu-do)  that  are  re- 
ferred to  in  note  48  above,  seem  at  least  to  have  been  capable  of  bearing  arms,  and 
the  dependent  folk  suggested  in  note  49  were  in  times  of  need  followers  in  arms  (e.  g., 
Koya,  I,  501-502;  III,  660;  IV,  636).  The  general  social  unrest  of  the  period  had 
made  this  condition  natural.  These  men  were  as  much  to  be  feared  as  occasional 
disturbers  of  peace,  in  frequent  .collusion  with  lawless  elements  in  neighboring  sho 
(I,  291;  IV,  657;  V,  464;  VII,  184-186;  etc.),  as  they  were  to  be  relied  upon  by 
the  monastic  seignior  as  the  bulwark  of  the  sho  against  uprising  or  invasion  (II,  546). 
See  also  note  57  below. 

61  About  1269  two  Miyayoshi  brothers,  presumably  of  the  triple  sho,  whose  titles 
Indicate  that  they  had  been  guardsmen  at  Kyoto,  led  an  invasion  into  a Koya  estate 
in  the  interest  of  another  religious  seignior,  and  went  to  the  capital  in  order  to  appeal 
for  aid  to  their  powerful  acquaintances  there.  Koya,  IV,  657 ; VII,  185.  About  the 
same  time  a Fujiwara.  residing  in  Makuni,  at  the  request  of  officers  of  the  sho,  car- 


332 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION, 


ried  out  with  success  a difficult  litigation  at  Kyoto  with  the  imperial  and  feudal 
authorities.  VII,  250-251,  254-255.  These  instances  may  be  multiplied. 

62  It  has  been  shown  in  the  text  how  our  very  sho  originated  in  a commendation 
in  1143,  made  by  an  owner  who  thenceforth  reserved  for  his  family  the  hereditary 
right  of  possession  and  management,  and  with  what  little  scruple  his  descendants 
commended  similar  rights  of  the  same  land  to  others.  A commendation  of  1325  by  a 
priest  in  the  remote  Awa  is  typical : A piece  of  land  situated  in  Makuni  itself,  that 
is,  part  of  the  triple  sho  of  which  Koya  had  long  been  seignior,  had  been  bought  by 
this  stranger,  and  what  he  now  gave  up  to  the  monastery  was  in  reality  a half  of 
his  income  from  the  land.  Koya,  I,  192-193.  The  possessor  of  another  estate  in  the 
same  Makuni  commended  it  to  a Shinto  temple  which  was,  it  is  true,  allied  with  the 
monastery;  here  too,  merely  an  interest  was  yielded,  while  the  soil  itself  was  passed 
from  father  to  son  in  the  commendor’s  family  and  even  sold  to  others.  Ill,  556; 
VII,  183.  Such  were  usual  processes  with  commended  lands. 

Sales,  especially  sales  “for  all  time”  (yei-dai  or  yei-nen),  usually  involved  actual 
conveyances  of  the  use  of  the  soil,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  was  true  in  all 
cases  ; at  least  it  is  a plain  fact  that  sometimes  certain  rights  or  interests  were  ex- 
plicitly reserved  by  the  seller.  Ill,  543,  608,  610. 

63  It  may  be  readily  inferred  that  there  could  exist  no  piece  of  land  in  any  sho  that 
was  not  thus  encumbered  ; and  the  encumbrances  were  often  many,  and  usually  much 
varied  in  the  same  district.  Of  this  variety,  one  immediate  cause  was  the  custom 
which  was  increasingly  prevalent  of  assigning  definite  pieces  for  the  maintenance  of 
individual  officials,  Koya  priests,  and  religious  houses  and  services.  For  the  twelfth 
century,  Koya,  V,  651,  655  ; VIII,  409-414  ; for  the  thirteenth,  ibid.,  IV,  352-356. 

That  conveyances  necessarily  carried  these  encumbrances  needs  no  explanation.  In- 
stances are  too  many  to  be  cited,  e.  g.,  ibid.,  VII,  235,  183 ; VI,  324,  and  III,  447, 
500 ; VI,  283,  etc.  These  accompanying  conditions  naturally  affected  the  price  of 
land.  E.  g.,  the  last  references  in  note  52  show  how  the  price  of  the  same  piece 
changed  as  its  conditions  altered. 

54  That  ju-nin  and  hyaku-sho  were  once  practically  identical  may  be  gathered  by 
comparing  documents  of  1164  and  1199  (Koya,  VII,  233,  237-240),  both  giving  the 
names  of  chief  residents  of  Kono.  (Cf.  the  list  of  hyaku-sh6  in  Mandokoro  sho  in 
1185 ; ibid.,  II,  547-559.)  The  word  yo-nin  (chief  men)  appears  in  a Mandokoro 
document  of  1125  (ibid.,  VII,  267)  ; still  earlier,  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries, 
the  word  yoriuto  (settlers)  is  used  interchangeably  with  ju-nin  (Iwashimidzu  mon- 
zho,  I,  270-299,  etc.).  Ju-nin  (residents)  is  a word  continually  used  in  the  feudal 
ages  for  warriors  established  in  rural  districts.  As  for  the  word  hyaku-sh5,  its  import- 
ant history  will  be  discussed  later  in  this  paper. 

The  word  ji-shu  (landholder),  which  later  is  pronounced  ju-nushi,  is  often  met 
with  (e.  g.,  Ki,  I,  863).  The  history  of  this  term  will  also  receive  notice  later. 

BB  These  men  could  not,  of  course,  have  been  the  only  family  heads  of  the  sh5,  but 
assuredly  were  its  foremost  inhabitants,  as  may  be  judged  from  the  interchange- 
ability  that  we  observe,  among  other  things,  of  the  phrases  “ the  place  [office]  of  the 
hyaku-sho  ” and  “ the  house  of  the  sho,”  or  “ the  officials  of  the  sho  ” and  “ sho 
officials  and  hyaku-sho  ” and  “ administrators  of  the  sho  house,”  or  “ the  group- 
heads  and  hyaku-sho  ” and  “ all  men  of  the  sh5  ” (e.  g.,  Koya,  VII,  183,  184,  186- 
187,  246).  They  were  also  called  sho-min  (people  of  the  sho).  Ibid.,  VII,  267. 

It  was  these  men  upon  whom  the  seignior  depended  for  the  rendering  of  the  dues 
and  services  of  the  sho,  and  whom  he  persuaded  to  make  oaths  of  general  or  fiscal 
fealty.  In  the  triple  sho:  in  1164,  Koya,  VII,  232;  in  1199,  VII,  236-240;  in  1269, 
IV,  657  ; VII,  184—186. 

*6  Descendants  of  the  original  owner  and  commendor  of  the  tract  which  later  grew 
to  be  the  triple  sho  served  as  its  officers  at  least  till  1291  (Koya,  VII,  197),  and  very 
likely  till  much  later.  Examples  of  hereditary  sho  officials  among  chief  residents  are 
frequent  in  the  thirteenth  and  early  fourteenth  century  (e.  g.,  ibid.,  I,  217,  219 ; III, 
659;  VI,  308-309;  VII,  250-251,  254-255,  etc.)  ; it  is  probable  that  nearly  all  the  respon- 
sible officials  of  the  sh5  were  these  residents,  and  that  most  of  them  were  hereditary. 

87  The  monks  of  Koya  abstained  from  following  the  pernicious  examples  of  those  of  the 
Hi-ei  and  Nara  monasteries  of  making  armed  demonstrations  against  one  another  and 
against  the  imperial  court,  and  of  taking  an  active  part  in  the  more  decisive  battles  of 
the  day.  However,  even  the  seclusion  of  the  mountain  did  not  afford  it  sufficient  protec- 
tion against  the  general  unrest  of  the  age,  and  the  monastery  was,  despite  its  pacific 
professions,  often  compelled  to  arm  Itself  for  sheer  defense.  The  guards  consisted  of 
warriors  supplied  by  the  various  sh5  and  of  the  more  warlike  of  the  monks  themselves. 
Ki,  V,  45,  135-136  ; about  weapons  of  sh6  officials  in  1233,  see  Koya,  VIII,  610. 

Once  provided,  the  armed  force  was  prone  to  abuse;  for  example,  from  1140  till  about 
1175,  and  again  in  the  next  century,  there  were  bloody  conflicts  between  the  two  factions 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN, 


333 


that  had  resulted  from  a schism  following  the  secession  of  the  monk  Kaku-ban.  Ki,  V, 
40-44.  The  attempt  made  in  1228  by  the  feudal  government  to  disarm  the  monks  (Koya 

I,  657)  probably  was  but  a temporary  success.  As  regards  the  warriors  sent  from  the 
different  sho  for  the  defense  of  the  monastery,  it  is  not  possible  to  learn  details  of  this 
form  of  service. 

There  is  an  example  of  military  service  under  another  religious  seignior.  In  1276,  a 
t family  in  Kyiishfi  whose  members  held  about  80  acres  of  rice  land  was  able  to  supply 
four  warriors,  two  of  them  mounted,  besides  three  attendants,  all  equipped.  This  must 
have  been  an  unusually  strong  family,  and  its  service  the  utmost  it  could  render  ; the 
occasion  was  during  the  time  of  the  Mongol  invasion.  Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  II,  190-191. 

The  various  monastic  sho,  which  were  much  more  exposed  than  the  sacred  mountain, 
v had  perforce  to  be  guarded  by  their  chief  “ residents  ” against  internal  discord  and 
external  aggression.  The  men  swore  that  they  would  “ take  and  hold  ” turbulent  monks 
and  that  “the  younger  men  would  beat  them  back”^(at  Mandokoro  sho  in  1185;  Koya, 

II,  546-558)  ; that  “ if  agents  of  the  shu-go  [military  constable  of  the  province]  intruded 
on  the  sho,  its  officials  would  protect  it  against  them  ” (at  the  triple  sho  in  1271  ; ibid., 
I,  507)  ; that  “ if  men  of  another  sho  invaded  the  monastic  domain,”  “ not  only  the,  offi- 
cials of  the  sho,  but  all  men,  high  and  low,  would,  as  soon  as  they  heard  of  the  trouble, 
vigorously  put  a stop  to  it”  (same  in  1276;  ibid.,  VII,  189).  Here  again  conditions  of 
the  military  or  police  service  of  the  residents  are  as  yet  obscure. 

Neither  the  monastery  nor  its  sho,  however,  owed  any  service  in  arms  to  the  feudal 
authorities,  either  central  or  provincial ; and  Koya  appealed  to  this  exemption  whenever 
its  aid  was  solicited  by  rivaling  political  parties.  Ki,  V,  135.  There  is  reason  to  sup- 
pose, however,  that  In  the  early  feudal  period  the  monastery  at  times  rendered  volun- 
tarily a service  which  was  obligatory  upon  all  feudal  lords,  namely,  of  furnishing  men  as 
periodic  guards  of  the  imperial  palace  at  Kyoto.  See  the  shogun’s  order  in  1197.  Koya, 
VIII,  23.  Nor  is  it  certain  whether  Koya  was  not  called  upon,  as  was  Iwashimidzu 
(Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  II,  148-191),  to  take  part  in  the  defense  of  Japan  during  the 
period  of  the  Mongol  invasion  in  the  third  quarter  of  the  thirteenth  century. 

68  Frequent  warlike  aggressions  came  either  from  men  who  claimed  and  would  enforce 
titles  to  land  in  the  sho  (1199;  Koya,  VII,  236),  from  agents  of  neighboring  seigniors 
(about  1186  ; Koya,  VII,  146  ; 1218  ; Ki,  V,  46  ; about  1215-1258  ; Koya,  V,  288-291,  501  ; 

VII,  250,  255;  1269;  IV,  657  ; Vlf,  185),  from  ambitious  warriors  on  their  own  account 
(1298  and  1300  ; Ki,  V,  49),  from  feudal  provincial  authorities  (1221  ; Koya,  I,  369-370), 
or  from  lawless,  unattached  elements  in  the  surrounding  districts  that  were  now  culti- 
vators of  soil  and  then  freebooters  and  mercenaries  (1207  ; Adzuma-kagami,  bk.  17  ; ed. 
Kikkawa,  II,  29).  But  for  the  presence  of  the  last-named  factor  in  various  parts  of 
Japan,  she  could  neither  have  been  so  readily  disturbed  nor  so  simply  protected,  as  the 
case  might  be,  as  she  was  in  this  period. 

69  Koya,  I,  503-518  ; V,  464-465  ; VII,  187-197,  199-214,  216-223,  225-226,  241-246  ; 

VIII,  121-124,  126-128. 

00  The  case  of  the  descendants  of  the  original  commendor  of  Kono-Makuni  has  been 
referred  to.  The  post  of  Ku-mon  in  Kono  was  plainly  held  by  men  of  one  family  at 
least  between  1256  and  1315  (Koya,  I,  509,  518;  VII,  197,  223),  and  probably  for  a 
much  longer  interval.  In  1254,  the  offices  of  so  to-ne  in  both  Kono  and  Sarukawa  were 
declared  to  be  hereditary  possessions  of  the  Taira  ; their  incumbents,  lately  dismissed, 
were  now  reinstated,  for,  as  said  an  interesting  order  from  Koya,  “ in  the  custom  of  all 
sho,  officers  invested  for  successive  generations,  if  they  were  temporarily  removed,  owing 
to  an  appeal  by  the  residents  or  an  accusation  by  the  Possessor  (ryo-ke),  were  usually 
restored  when  they  offered  a satisfactory  explanation.”  Koya,  VI,  308-309.  Both  these 
families  had  presumably  descended  from  the  first  commendor.  At  any  rate,  the  princi- 
ples of  hereditary  office  holding  dated  from  much  earlier  than  1254.  Cf.  Note  66  below. 

81  The  ku-mon  of  Makuni  in  1303-1315  was  a woman  (Koya,  I,  518;  VII,  254,  256)  ; 
though  she  was  sometimes  represented  by  a masculine  deputy,  it  is  not  clear  whether 
that  was  due  to  her  sex,  for  male  sho-officials  also  used  deputies.  In  this  period,  even 
stewards  (ji-to)  in  districts  representing  the  central  feudal  government  were  sometimes 
women. 

There  was  little  difference  in  the  understanding  of  the  time  between  succession  to  a 
right  of  land  and  that  to  an  office ; both  were  regarded  as  sources  of  profit,  and  a woman 
could  inherit  an  office  as  naturally  as  she  could  a title  on  land.  Ibid.,  VI,  288 ; VII, 
184  ; in  the  former  document  an  eldest  daughter,  whose  name  is  quite  mannish,  signs  a 
deed  of  sale  together  with  her  father  ; in  the  latter,  Kdya  gives  an  interest  in  land  to 
a nun. 

82  To  ne,  ban-gashira,  and  other  responsible  residents  bearing  no  titles.  Koya,  I, 
509-513;  VII,  199-200,  211-214,  225-226;  VIII,  121,  123-124,  126-127. 

63  The  so  tsui-ho  shi  and  ku-mon  of  each  part  of  the  triple  sh5.  Koya,  I,  503-508  ; 
VII,  187-192.  It  would  be  vain  to  try  to  translate  the  titles.-  These  higher  officials,  as 


334 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION, 


“ men  invested  in  the  sho,”  had  the  duties  to  defend  it,  to  respond  to  the  summons  from 
the  seignior  (“  if  he  [the  official]  himself  is  afflicted  with  a grave  illness,  he  should  offer 
a solemn  oath  and  present  his  son  [in  his  stead]  ; if  he  has  no  son,  then  some  one  like 
himself”)-  One  man  was  a resident  in  a district,  served  as  so  tsui-ho  shi  in  another, 
and  held  an  office  land  in  a third  (I,  509;  IV,  633;  VII,  192)  ; the  meaning  of  this  is 
patent — he  is  an  example  of  an  invested  servant. 

64  The  oaths  of  the  one  class  contain  the  statement  which  those  of  the  other  class  do 
not,  that  if  the  official  violated  some  one  (in  oaths  of  1276  and  1315),  or  any  one  article 
(in  oaths  of  1271,  1291,  and  1303)  of  his  agreement,  “ his  office  would  be  revoked.” 
When,  in  1254,  the  dismissed  so  to-ne  of  Kono  and  Sarukawa  were  on  f heir  prayei 
reinstated,  the  monastery  improved  the  opportunity  to  make  each  of  them  swear  that 
“in  all  things  I [he]  would  obey  the  command  of  the  monastery,”  that  “La  my  [his] 
management  of  all  affairs,  great  and  small,  the  interest  of  the  monastery  would  be  my 
[bis]  chief  consideration,”  and  that  “ if  any  of  my  [his]  descendants  violated  this 
pledge,  he  would  be  totally  disabled  to  hold  this  office.”  Koya,  I,  217,  219. 

In  this  connection  I might  give  a version  of  the  unabridged  oath  with  which  the 
officials,  irrespective  of  the  degree  of  their  freedom,  concluded  their  solemn  pronounce- 
ments : “If  I fabricate  a lie  and  violate  this  pledge,  divine  punishments  of  Brahma  and 
Indra,  the  Four  Great  Heavenly  Raja,  all  the  great  and  small  kami  of  Japan,  [the  deities 
of]  the  four  shrines  of  Amano  and  their  relatives  and  attendants,  Dai-shi  and  Vajrapffni, 
and  all  the  deities  of  the  two  mandala,  will  enter  through  the  84,000  pores  of  my  body, 
and  I shall  be  in  this  life  afflicted  with  the  grave  ills  of  white  leprosy  and  black  leprosy, 
and  in  the  next  life  fall  into  the  limitless  hell,  with  no  opportunity  to  issue  therefrom. 
Thus  I swear.” 

65  In  Adegawa,  1138  and  1193  (Koya,  V,  651,  654-656)  ; Ota,  1198  (VIII,  590-592)  ; 
Arakawa,  1254  (VII,  117)  ; Hamanaka,  1298  (IV,  354)  ; Nade,  1271  (III,  438)  ; etc. 
For  the  triple  sho  : The  ku-mon  of  Ishibashiri,  in  1263  (VII,  186-187)  ; so  tsui-ho  shi 
of  Sarukawa,  who  lived  in  Shibame  (Saime),  and  was  granted  land  in  Kono  (cited  in 
note  63  above)  ; to  the  holders  of  the  same  office  in  1291  were  assigned  peasant  families 
(men-ka)  whose  members  they  could  employ  and  who  probably  paid  them  dues  (VII, 
193-197)  ; these  officers  seem  to  have  held  land  (article  18)  which  probably  accompanied 
their  post. 

It  may  at  the  same  time  be  taken  for  granted  that  there  still  were  some  sho  officers 
who  received  no  special  compensation  in  land  or  rice,  but  in  their  direct  contact  with 
the  taxpayers  had  sufficient  opportunities  to  reward  their  service.  The  intend  ants  in 
French  manors  are  said  to  have  been  farmers  and  received  no  remuneration  from  the 
lord,  but  had  comfortable  personal  incomes. 

ca  Having  been  freed  of  the  Possessor  (ry5-ke)  of  the  double  sho  in  1221  and  of  its 
feudal  steward  (ji-to)  in  1227,  Koya,  at  length  a seignior  of  full  power,  soon  found  the 
first  opportunity  to  assert  its  authority  over  the  sho  officials.  In  1228,  for  certain  al- 
leged offenses,  Koya  without  scruple  dismissed  and  banished  the  powerful  ku-mon  of 
Ivono,  whose  family,  as  descendants  of  the  original  commendor  of  the  sho,  had  held  the 
post  for  generations.  If  the  culprit  made  an  effort  to  return  with  the  aid  of  great 
families  at  Kyoto,  his  descendants  would  be  “ debarred  even  unto  the  seventh  genera- 
tion.” Koya,  I,  296  ; VII,  182.  It  is  likely  that  this  man  soon  repaired  his  wrongs  and 
was  restored  to  his  office.  His  successor  also  was  in  1254  dismissed  and  restored.  See 

Note  60  above.  In  each  case  were  both  the  principles  of  hereditary  office  holding  and 

of  seigniorial  authority  allowed  to  prevail  through  a compromise. 

The  banishment  and  confiscation  of  a ku-mon  of  Arakawa  in  1293  was  the  penalty 
for  a specially  heinous  crime,  and  there  was  no  compromise  (III,  659).  Other  seigniors 
may  have  been  more  arbitrary.  Cf.  Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  II,  254-256. 

07  In  the  document  of  1228  referred  to  in  the  last  note  are  mentioned  agents  of  the 

monastery  who  held  land  in  the  sho.  Koya,  VII,  181.  In  1269  the  administrator 

(zassho)  of  Shishikui  sho  was  a monastic  agent  and  his  tenure  revocable.  Ki,  IV,  905. 

63  Among  the  titles  of  documents  listed  in  1246  appear  “A  table  of  wet  and  upland 
fields  of  the  triple  district  of  Kono,  etc.,”  and  “A  map  of  the  sho.”  Koya,  II,  389-390. 
These  documents  might  have  thrown  light  on  the  tenures  of  that  date,  but  unfortunately 
they  have  not  been  preserved. 

69  Instances  of  hereditary  transmission  and  of  mortgage  and  sale  of  lands  are  too 
common  and  numerous  in  the  cartulary  to  need  references.  In  each  case,  all  documents 
that  had  in  the  past  successively  established  the  titles  to  the  given  piece  of  land  were 
handed  over  by  the  old  holder  to  the  new,  so  that  their  number  increased  as  convey- 
ance was  repeated.  Cf.  Note  79  below.  In  each  case  a duplicate  of  the  deed  seems 
to  have  been  presented  to  the  office  of  the  sho,  and  thence  to  the  monastery,  this  consti- 
tuting apparently  the  only  formality  that  the  se.ignior  required.  There  is  no  evidence  of, 
nor  was  there  yet  any  reason  for,  the  exaction  of  a seigniorial  relief  or  droit  de  muta- 
tion. Usually  the  conveyor  was  the  only  signer  of  the  deed,  but  in  certain  instances  a 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN, 


335 


child,  usually  the  eldest,  whether  son  or  daughter,  signed  with  the  father  and  some- 
times the  buyer  as  well.  Rarely  did  officials  of  the  sho  affix  countersignatures  to  such 
documents.  Koya,  III,  510. 

70  The  expulsion  of  offending  landholders  and  the  confiscation  of  their  tenures  were 
not  only  established  in  law  (as  in  the  oaths  of  1271,  1276,  and  1291 ; see  Note  59 
above),  but  actually  enforced  (e.  g.,  in  1291  Koya,  VIII,  122).  The  offenses  stated  in 

J the  oaths  as  meriting  this  penalty  were  the  robbing  of  the  fruit  of  harvest  in  another’s 
land,  arbitrary  exaction  of  rice  or  money  from  people,  and  willful  confusion  of  juris- 
dictions with  other  seigniories. 

The  instances  cited  above  are  from  the  triple  sho,  and  all  date  from  the  latter  half  of 
the  twelfth  century.  In  Mandokoro  sho,  where,  as  has  been  said  (Note  17  above),  the 
monastery  wielded  large  powers  from  relatively  early  times,  confiscations  had  occurred 
already  in  TWO*.  Ibid.,  VII,  267-268.  1 0 ? ° 

71  The  confiscated  lands  at  Mandokoro,  just  referred  to  in  the  preceding  note,  were 
granted  in  perpetuity  to  residents  on  payment  of  certain  sums.  Instances  of  such  pay- 
ments are  rare.  A case  of  a simple  grant  of  dispossessed  land  occurs  in  the  double  sh5 
in  1260  (Koya,  VII,  184)  ; another  in  Nade  sho  in  1271  (III,  438).  As  the  seignior  was 
eve-  n the  alert  to  multiply  the  more  precarious  tenures  in  his  domains  at.  the  expense 
of  me  freer  ones,  he  as  naturally  availed  himself  of  confiscations  as  he  also  did  of 
abandoned  holdings  (e.  g.,  in  Makuni  about  1218,  ibid.  VII,  180)  and  of  disputed  cases 
that  he  adjudicated  (e.  g.,  in  Kono  in  1271,  ibid.,  Ill,  583),  to  create  dependent  tenants. 

72  Despite  the  orthodox  theories  regarding  the  history  of  the  myo-den  (cf.,  e.  g., 

T.  Yoshida,  Sho-yen  sei-do  no  tai-yo,  p.  147),  the  study  of  the  whole  subject  needs  to 
be  rebuilt  upon  documents.  In  the  present  state  of  critical  knowledge,  I hardly  dare 
go  beyond  the  suggestions  I offer  in  notes  73  and  108  below,  and  must  refrain  from 
presuming  to  answer  such  questions  as  follow : What  is  the  institutional  difference, 
as  well  as  relation,  between  the  myo  (na)  and  the  azana,  both  proper  names  of 
lands,  and  what  is  the  origin  of  each?  Why  did  similar  myo  suggesting  the  per- 
sonal names  of  noblemen  occur  in  many  parts  of  Japan?  Was  the  my5-den,  usually 
only  a few  acres  in  extent,  often  as  large  as  a sho,  and  could  it  as  such  become  a 
sh5?  Can  the  current  theory  be  verified  that  the  myo  in  the  words  dai-my5  (great 
lords)  and  sho-my5  (petty  lords)  was  derived  from  the  myo  of  myo-den?  How  often 
was  a myo-den  an  antecedent  of  mura  (rural  division)  of  the  Edo  period,  like  Agegai 

4 in  Kono?  Kono  contained,  in  1425,  at  least  11  myo.  Koya,  IV,  445-446. 

73  The  granting  of  common  myo-den  in  our  sho  occurs  as  early  as  before  1183’  (Koya, 

VI,  300;  for  the  date,  compare  Ki,  V,  124),  and  continues  ever  after  (e.  g.,  Koya,  I, 

218;  IV,  632-634).  Similar  grants  to  officeholders  in  the  sho  and  to  monks  are  as 
often  met  with  from  the  latter  half  of  the  thirteenth  century  (I,  509  ; III,  652-660 ; 

+ IV,  633  ; VII,  186,  192  ; these  names  to  be  studied  together  ; Iwashimidzu  mon-zho, 

I,  322-323,  393,  418),  as  myo-holders  (myo-shu)  serving  in  official  capacities.  Koya, 

IV,  632-634.  There  had  even  appeared  myo-den  bearing  official  titles,  in  lieu  of  per- 
sonal names,  as  their  designations  (Ji-to  myo : ibid.,  VIII,  612-613 ; So  tsui-ho  shi 
myo:  IV,  632-634;  Ku-mon  myo:  VII,  186-187;  etc.). 

Like  all  holdings  (ryo,  possession  ; chi-gyo,  holding) — or  at  least  all  those  that  had 
originated  in  private  ownership — the  myo-den  was  transmissible  by  heredity,  divisible, 
and  alienable  (Koya,  III,  540,  543,  etc.;  IV,  632-634;  VII,  187,  250-252),  so  that  the 
same  piece  continued  to  change  hands  and  the  memory  of  the  origin  of  its  proper 
names  was  often  lost.  Whether  such  free  conveyance  was  either  allowed  or  practiced 
with  myo-den  attached  to  officials  can  not  be  asserted. 

74  It  is  true  that  “ residents  ” of  sho  who  had  assumed  Buddhist  names  (men  called 
nyu-do)  also  commended  landed  interests  to  Koya  (e.  g.,  Koya,  II,  226),  but  more  re- 
markable are  commendations  made  by  monks  of  the  monastery  (many  of  whom  them- 
selves had  doubtless  beeD  “residents”)  ; some  of  the  interests  thus  transferred  had  been 
held  by  monks  in  heredity  or  master-to-pupil  succession  (III,  420),  some  had  circulated 
among  monks  (V,  487-488),  and  some  had  been  bought  by  them  with  a view  to  giving 
them  to  the  monastery  (II,  145  ; III,  447,  where  the  commendation  was  carried  out  the 
day  after  the  purchase).  A catalogue  of  the  commended  pieces  in  all  the  Koya  sho 
which  seems  to  have  been  first  compiled  about  1333  (VIII,  466-532),  though  imperfectly 
preserved,  contained  more  than  400  entries,  including  a few  repetitions ; and  a great 
majority  were  recent  commendations.  The  history  of  many  of  these  pieces  of  land  may 
be  partially  traced  in  other  documents  scattered  through  the  entire  cartulary.  In  one 
instance,  an  estate  that  had  been  held  by  a family  for  five  generations  was  from  1272 
divided  into  separate  plots,  each  following  an  independent  course  in  the  next  60  years, 
and  all  apparently  having  been  commended  to  Koya  by  1333  (II,  193,  241  ; III,  402,  446, 

500,  539,  583;  VIII,  472,  475-476,  500,  528). 

These  significant  phenomena,  it  will  be  readily  inferred,  reflect  the  earnest  desire  of 
the  monastic  seignior  to  see  the  monks  acquire  secular  holdings  and  hold  them  securely 


336 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION, 


In  their  hands  pending  commendation.  When,  in  1263,  the  disputed  title  to  a my5-den  in 
Kono  was  granted  by  Koya  to  a monk,  he  was  made  to  swear  that  he,  “ as  one  of  the 
monks  of  the  monastery,  would  manage  the  affairs  [in  the  place]  exactly  as  in  the  other 
monkish  holdings,”  and  lhat,  if  he  “ ceased  to  live  on  the  mountain,  he  would  convey  the 
title  to  one -who  lived  there,  and  would  not  let  it  fall  into  the  possession  of  anyone 
below  the  mountain  or  living  elsewhere”  (I,  218). 

76  Koya,  II,  193,  226.  “In  order  to  requite  the  munificence  of  the  High  Founder 

[Kobo]  and  to  pray  for  the  bodhi  [Buddhist  wisdom]  of  my  benefactors.”  Ill,  421.  “I 
pray  that,  for  this  slight  offering,  I might  in  the  future  reach  the  court  of  the  reincar- 
nated Maitreya  and  serve  at  the  presence  of  the  enlightened  Dai-shi  [Kobo].”  II, 
193.  “ For  the  deliverance  of  the  late  master  and  parent  and  for  the  enlightenment  of 

the  pupil  and  child.”  II,  241. 

78  As  the  monastery  had  a greater  insurance  of  its  income  from  a piece  of  land  when  it 
was  in  the  hands  of  one  of  its  own  monks  than  when  it  was  held  by  a sho-resident,  one  is 
not  surprised  to  find  that  Koya  encouraged  monkish  acquisitions  by  granting  them  certain 
exemptions.  Koya,  Y,  487-488.  When  the  land  was  commended  to  Koya,  even  though 
the  commendation  may  in  most  cases  only  have  secured  the  seigniorial  right  of  Koya  of 
formally  investing  the  successive  holders  or  “ cultivators,”  the  monastery  gained  in  the 
increased  dependency  of  the  tenures  and  their  added  uniformity  that  resulted.  These  two 
points  seem  clear  ; what  is  not  as  clear  is  the  advantage  derived  by  the  monk  by  his  act 
of  commendation  that  must  have  been  so  great  as  to  make  it,  as  was  the  case,  a universal 
practice  in  all  the  sho  of  Koya.  The  supposed  reason  stated  in  the  text  finds  confirma- 
tion in  the  fact  that,  in  1286,  a commendor  reserved  in  his  family  the  hereditary  right 
of  “ cultivatorship.”  Koya,  III,  410. 

77  It  -may  well  be  imagined  how  strongly  the  monastery  was  aided  by  the  ready  di- 
vision and  conveyance  of  landed  rights  and  interests  practiced  by  the  ji-sbu,  in  its 
eager  effort  to  convert  myo-den  and  other  holdings  into  more  dependent  tenures  (note 
73)  and  to  induce  commendations  through  monks  (notes  74  and  76). 

78  Already  for  decades  the  monastery  had  been  harassed  by  its  own  unruly  inmates 
and  by  intruding  marauders,  when  from  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century  the  power 
of  the  central  feudal  government  waned  and  the  general  commotion  grew  more  in- 
tense throughout  Japan.  Koya  was  obliged  to  guard  its  sacred  grounds  with  heavier 
garrisons  raised  in  the  sho  than  ever.  One  or  two  references  to  contemporary  docu- 
ments will  reveal  the  condition  without  further  comment. 

In  1242  the  monastery  asserted  : “ When  it  is  rumored  or  discovered  that  a lawless 
act  has  been  committed  by  wicked  men  within  these  precincts,  it  has  been  customary 
in  this  monastery  from  olden  times  to  establish  guards  and  man  the  various  squares 
and  avenues.”  Ki,  V,  43.  Representative  monks  themselves  said  in  a solemn  docu- 
ment dated  1271 : “ ...  It  has  of  late  been  reported  at  the  various  houses  [of  this 
monastery]  that  night  attacks,  robberies,  incendiarisms,  and  murders  have  increased 

yearly  and  been  repeated  daily,  and  that  gambling  has  been  continual  . . .”.  Koya, 

I,  482.  In  1228  and  about  1310  ineffectual  efforts  were  made  by  the  feudal  and  im- 
perial governments  to  interdict  warlike  behavior  of  monks.  Koya,  I,  557  ; Ki,  V,  136. 
There  is  an  order  from  Koya  dated  1307  commanding  that  officers  of  a sho  should 
present  on  appointed  dates  its  full  quota  of  warriors  for  attendance  on  the  moun- 
tain, on  pain  of  forfeiting  their  trust.  Koya,  VIII,  77-78  ; cf.  184.  See  note  57  above. 

79  Cf.  note  69  above.  It  is  here  necessary  to  cite  only  notable  cases  from  the 

triple  sho.  During  the  15  years  after  1254,  a piece  of  land  that  had  been  held  by 
members  of  the  strong  Magami  family  was  transferred  so  often  that  its  conveyance 
In  1269  was  accompaniel  by  11  deeds.  Koya,  VI,  288 ; VII,  183-184.  Within  30 
years  after  1303  a rice  land  with  an  extent  of  barely  a quarter  of  an  acre  changed 
hands  at  short  intervals  and  was  finally  commended  to  Koya  with  seven  documents. 
Ill,  540,  543,  608,  610  ; V,  599  ; VIII,  515. 

80  This  is  another  knotty  problem  which  may  be  solved,  if  at  all,  only  by  the  study 

of  actual  documents  of  the  time.  And  a part  of  this  important  problem  is  the  his- 

torical relation  of  the  agricultural  laborers  of  this  period  with  the  numerous  do- 
mestic slaves  (shi  nu-hl,  shi  sen)  of  the  earlier  ages.  As  for  the  hired  agricultural 
laborers  after  the  close  of  the  second  feudal  period,  see  note  116  below. 

81  It  is  altogether  likely  that  in  the  early  lifd  of  a sh5  the  landholder  and  the 

cultivator  were  often  one  and  the  same  person.  Compare,  for  example,  the  word 

“settlers”  (yoriuto),  meaning  the  first  inhabitants  of  a new  sho  (see  note  54  above), 
that  appears  in  a document  of  1072,  with  the  phrase  “ to  settle  and  cultivate  ” (yori- 
tsukuru)  used  in  reference  to  the  same  place  60  years  later  (Iwashimldzu  mon-zho,  1, 
827).  As  a matter  of  fact,  when  a sh6  was  created  around  a cultivated  area,  it  was 
necessary  to  procure  men  to  settle  on  the  still  uncultivated  places  to  develop  them. 
We  find  from  the  end  of  the  eighth  century  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  managers 
of  sho  to  welcome  outlaws  to  settle  (yori-sumu)  there,  apparently  for  this  very  pur 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN, 


337 


pose  (Rui-zhu  san-dai  kyaku,  bk.  8,  in  Koku-shi  tai-kei,  XII,  708)  ; there  may  have 
been  law-abiding  settlers  as  well.  At  any  rate,  we  here  seem  to  see  the  origin  of 
the  yoriuto,  who  in  the  course  of  time  differentiated  into  “ landholders  ” and  “ cul- 
tivators.” 

It  is  obvious  that  the  differentiation  between  the  “ landholdership  ” and  “ cultivator- 
ship  ” as  rights  (shiki)  developed  still  later,  though  the  manner  of  this  differentia- 
tion has  not  yet  been  investigated. 

82  1123.  Imashimidzu  mon-zho,  I,  343. 

83  Instances  of  “cultivators  ” bearing  good  family  names : Koya,  II,  172 ; VIII, 
483-484.  Those  mentioned  with  the  honorific  title  dono  (esquire)  : V,  487 ; VI,  288. 
The  same  “ cultivator  ” holding  the  right  in  several  plots  : Koya,  V,  48611. ; VIII,  122, 
409-414,  483-484.  The  “ cultivators  ” who  were  also  “ landholders  ” : Inferentially, 
Koya,  I,  218  ; III,  410  ; VIII,  122,  409-414.  Clear  cases  from  the  next  period  : Ibid., 
V,  504-518. 

As  will  be  readily  seen,  it  had  resulted  from  the  prevailing  fluidity  of  real  rights 
that  the  same  person  held  both  the  “ landholdership  ” (ji-shu  shiki)  and  the  “ culti- 
vatorship  ” (saku-nin  shiki)  of  a plot  of  land,  or  the  one  right  of  a plot  and  the 
other  right  of  another  plot.  Logically,  also,  a tenant  of  many  “ cultivatorships  ” 
might  also  'be  a “ landholder  ” and  otherwise  be  an  influential  “ resident.” 

“The  so-called  ge  (or  shita)  saku-nin — did  it  mean  “undercultivator”  or  “cul- 
tivator of  the  shita-ji,”  that  is,  the  soil? — did  the  actual  work  of  tilling  (cf.  1263: 
Koya,  I,  218),  but  it  is  not  clear  whether  they  worked  under  the  ordinary  “culti- 
vators,” and  whether  the  prefix  ge  (under)  had  been  added  because  a differentiation  had 
developed  between  these  actual  tillers  and  the  holders  of  “ cultivatorships.” 

81  The  sole  “ cultivator  ” of  a district  in  Yamashiro  had,  in  1123,  “ granted  it  to  his 
friends”  (Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  I,  343)  ; whatever  the  terms  of  the  “grants,”  the  same 
man  probably  retained  his  title  of  “ cultivator  ” and  its  attendant  profit  and  obligations. 
I construe  in  the  same  light  the  case  of  those  “ cultivators  ” in  a Koya  sho,  in  1273, 
who  had  “ sold  ” the  rights  to  others,  but  officially  were  still  titular  “ cultivators  ” ; the 
“sales”  were  private  and  the  buyers  were  not  recognized.  Koya,  V,  486-487. 

As  a result  of  division  and  transfer,  “ cultivators  ” from  the  latter  half  of  the  thir- 
teenth century  not  infrequently  held  saku-shiki  in  other  districts  or  even  sho.  Ibid.,  I, 
508  ; II,  193  ; V,  513  ; VIII,  470,  526. 

86  A man  begged  Koya  that  he  be  allowed  to  succeed  to  the  “ nam&  land  ” that  his 

father  had  held  and  lost,  and  that  “ people  of  the  sho  be  made  its  cultivators  ” under 
him.  1263  : Koya,  I,  218.  “ Cultivators  ” are  mentioned  under  monkish  “ landholders.” 

1273 : V,  486-488.  Oaths  of  1271  (art.  15)  and  1291  (art.  33)  contain  provisions 
against  offensive  behavior  of  the  “ cultivator  ” toward  his  master  “ landholder.”  I,  508  ; 
VII,  196.  It  is  also  remarkable  that  the  “ landholder  ” sometimes  retained  his  rights 
over  the  cultivatorship  of  a piece  of  land  whose  interest  he  alienated  ; he  remained  as 
master  over  the  “cultivator”  (II,  186;  III,  403,  608-609),  deriving  a profit  from  the 
continued  control. 

In  1164  a “ cultivator’s  ” right  had  to  be  renewed  at  the  change  of  his  master  “ land- 
holder.” Koya,  II,  172.  Even  when  the  heredity  of  the  right  had  later  become  a matter 
of  course,  a semblance  of  its  originally  precarious  character  was  sometimes  retained  in 
formal  documents ; in  1237  a former  “ landholder  ” swears  to  the  buyer  of  his  right : 
“As  regards  the  cultivatorship  [that  has  been  held  by  Gempachi,  a third  party],  it 
should  without  doubt  be  at  your  disposal,  but  I understand  that  it  will,  because  of  my 
intercession,  remain  in  the  same  hands  for  the  time  being,  and  that  if  its  holder  fails 
in  his  duties,  you  will  dispose  of  it.”  Ibid.,  VII,  240. 

87  The  retention  of  the  same  “ cultivators  ” by  “ landholders  ” who  followed  one 
another  by  heredity  or  alienation  is  common  after  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century 
(inferred  from  cases  that  occur  in  Koya,  V,  486ff. ; in  II,  145;  and  VIII,  494).  Some 
were  called  jo  saku-nin,  “ fixed  cultivators  ” ; e.  g.,  Gempachi  between  1304  and  about 
1333,  in  ibid.,  Ill,  540,  543,  608,  610  ; VIII,  515,  etc. ; the  catalogue  of  1333  ( ?)  contains 
many  other  “fixed”  instances  (VIII,  466-532). 

That  “ cultivators  ” were  sometimes  defiant  of  their  “ landholders  ” is  reflected  in  the 
oaths  of  officials  of  the  triple  sho  of  1271  (art.  15)  and  1291  (art.  33).  Ibid.,  I,  508; 
VII,  196. 

88  That  “ cultivators  ” in  this  sho  were  in  direct  relation  of  some  kind  with  its  officials 
and  seignior  over  the  heads  of  “ landholders  ” is  inferred  from  the  following  passages. 
In  a document,  probably  of  the  late  13th  century,  occurs  this  obscure  statement : “Any 
case  of  an  error  of  [?  committed  by]  ‘ cultivators’  shall  be  reported  [to  the  monastery] 
with  joint  signatures  of  the  myo  holders  and  district  chiefs  ; if  they  neglect  to  do  so, 
they  shall  pay  a sa-da  ryo  [?“  administration  fee”]  for  the  ‘cultivators’”  (Koya,  IV, 
634)  ; the  oath  of  1291  by  a sho  official  says,  among  other  things  : “ When  a ‘ cultivator  ’ 
is  guilty  of  an  offense,  I will  not  put  up  a placard  in  a monkish  estate  and  cause  it 

23318°— 19 -22 


338 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION, 


trouble”  (VII,  193),  and  “I  will  not,  in  behalf  of  a ‘cultivator,’  act  unreasonably  to- 
ward a ‘landholder’  or  myo  holder”  (VII,  196).  In  the  next  period,  a direct  payment 
of  dues  by  “cultivators”  to  monastic  agents  is  evident  (VIII,  227). 

When  increasing  numbers  of  plots  were  bought  by  monks  and  commended  to  Koya 
(see  Note  74  above),  the  “cultivators”  of  the  plots  passed  naturally  into  a more  direct 
relation  with  monastic  agents.  The  catalogue  about  1333,  mentioned  in  the  same  Note, 
gives  the  name  of  the  “ cultivator  ” for  almost  every  entry  it  contains. 

89  There  is  a reference  to  “ the  cultivator’s  dues  ” as  early  as  1072  in  another  seign- 
iory. (Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  I,  298.)  In  Koya  sho  the  conveyances  of  landholderships, 
in  1272  and  1307,  by  men  who  reserved  to  themselves  a control  of  cultivatorships,  betray 
the  existence  of  profits  derivable  from  this  control  (Koya,  III,  403,  608-609),  while 
documents  of  1308  and  1317  specifically  give  the  rates  of  the  “ cultivator’s  ” dues  to 
the  “ landholder.”  II,  186  ; VII,  240. 

90  Koya,  V,  651-652 ; VII,  280-301  (I  presume  these  names  to  be  those  of  “ culti- 
vators ”)  ; VIII,  409-414  ; etc. 

From  the  late  13th  century,  in  defining  the  boundaries  of  a plot,  the  old  custom  of 
mentioning  geographical  features  in  the  four  bounding  directions  (e.  g.,  east,  to  the  river ; 
west,  to  the  road;  south,  the  district  so-and-so;  north,  hill  so-and-so),  gave  place  in 
an  increasing  number  of  cases  to  a new  way,  that  is,  of  giving  the  names  of  the  “ culti- 
vators ” of  the  adjoining  plots  (e  g.,  south,  Tomoyoshi’s  saku,  or  “ cultivation  ” ; north, 
Tokugoro’s  saku).  Koya,  III,  500,  539;  VI,  288.  Rarely  do  the  holders’  names  of  these 
plots  appear  for  this  purpose. 

91  The  list  of  1218  may  be  of  “ landholders.”  Koya,  VIII,  592-597.  Those  of  1337 
(VII,  280-302)  and  1368  (VIII,  452-455)  are  doubtful. 

02  Near  Kyoto,  civil  nobles  continued  to  exercise  control  over  their  sho  at  least  until 
the  middle  of  the  14th  century  (Yen-tai  reki,  diary  of  Fujiwara-no-Kimikata ; 1345, 
the  memorial  by  the  governor  of  Settsu  ; Yale  ms.,  V,  132-133).  Even  here,  however,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  remoter  parts  of  Japan,  it  was  not  long  before  the  military  ji-to 
(stewards)  in  the  sh5  succeeded  in  defying  and  completely  ignoring  the  feeble,  impover- 
ished civil  hon-ke  (lord)  and  ryo-ke  (possessor)  at  Kyoto;  the  old  sho  documents  were 
held  in  scant  respect,  for  might  alone  made  right.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ji-to  owed 
dues  and  services  to  his  feudal  lord.  The  private  warrior  who  had  first  entered  the  sho 
under  a civil  lord  in  the  humble  capacity  of  a manager,  had  ended  in  becoming  its  lord 
under  a military*  overlord. 

93  The  military  shu-go  (constable)  of  the  province  had  obliterated  its  old  civil  gover- 
norship and  become  its  supreme  lord  ; all  the  ji-to  and  other  chiefs  in  the  territory  he 
regarded  as  his  vassals.  The  province  had  become  a domain  that  comprised  fiefs  arranged 
in  the  descending  series  of  a hierarchical  organization.  Public  functions  had  become  pri- 
vate possessions,  while  private  rights  had  been  so  extended  as  to  coalesce  with  public  offices. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  all  domains  were  not  coextensive  with  provinces  (kuni).  A 
few  comprised  several  kuni  each,  while  the  majority  were  fractions  of  kuni.  The  tend- 
ency with  the  military  domains  was  in  the  direction  of  an  amalgamation  into  fewer  and 
larger  domains. 

°*  In  the  first  period,  the  policy  of  the  suzerain  seems  to  have  been  to  keep  the  domains 
of  his  immediate  vassals  intact  by  restricting  their  freedom  of  sale  and  mortgage  ; there 
still  remained  distinctions  of  tenures  among  them  and  among  the  rear-vassals.  During 
the  period  of  civil  war,  however,  the  general  tendency  was  to  reduce  all  military  tenures  of 
land  to  precarious  grants  in  fee.  It  may  be  said  that  the  most  powerful  lords,  like  the 
Hojo  and  the  Shimadzu,  were  those  who  had  best  succeeded  in  enforcing  this  policy,  as  it 
contributed  powerfully  to  the  necessary  discipline  and  coherence.  This  was  another 
result  of  the  same  need  and  the  same  power  that  had  established  the  vassal’s  duty  of 
primogeniture  and  the  lord’s  interference  in  his  marriage  and  succession. 

96  Cf.  T.  Yoshia,  Sho-yen  sei-do  no  tai-yo,  ch.  17. 

98  For  a fuller  discussion  of  these  points,  see  my  “ Notes  on  the  village  government  in 
Japan  after  1600  ” in  the  Journal  of  the  American  oriental  society,  Vol.  XXX,  pt.  3,  and 
Vol.  XXXI,  pt.  2,  1910-1911. 

97  In  the  first  feudal  period  the  chief  weapons  in  warfare  were  the  bow  and  arrow,  and 
combat  was  individual ; only  in  close  quarters  were  swordsmanship  and  wrestling  resorted 
to.  At  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century  the  sword  had  largely  replaced  the  bow  and 
arrow  as  the  first  arm,  and  from  the  sixteenth  the  spear  found  favor  beside  the  sword. 
Each  of  these  successive  innovations  was  accompanied  by  more  organized  methods  of 
war,  without  entirely  doing  away  with  displays  of  individual  skill  and  valor.  Gun- 
powder and  a firearm  were  accidentally  brought  in  by  shipwrecked  Portuguese  about  1543, 
and  their  use  and  manufacture  quickly  spread  over  Japan,  though  they  never  succeeded  in 
replacing  the  older  weapons,  even  the  bow  and  arrow.  The  adoption  of  the  new  arms 
greatly  accelerated  the  progress  of  organized  tactics,  under  the  impact  of  which  petty 
seigniories  were  absorbed  or  crushed  out  of  existence  between  domains  that  grew  larger 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN, 


339 


and  fewer  ; and  the  civil  strife  became  more  universal  and  intense.  This  was  attended 
by  those  far-reaching  social  effects  to  which  I refer  in  the  text. 

98  The  theory  that  the  land-holding  peasant  was  not  an  owner  but  merely  a tenant 
entitled  to  the  hereditary  use  of  the  soil  on  the  condition  that  he  rendered  his  dues  and 
services  to  the  lord  was  expressed  at  the  end  of  the  period  in  such  current  terms  as  the 
peasants’  cbi-gyo  and  ade-okonai,  common  expressions  for  grants  in  tenure.  Iwashi- 
midzu  mon-zho,  III,  654,  etc.  The  same  idea,  as  a theory,  persisted  throughout  the 
third  feudal  period  in  some  domains.  See  note  30  in  the  article  referred  to  in  note  96 
above. 

99  When  Hideyoshi  made  a general  cadastral  survey  of  Japan  in  1594-1599,  he  frankly 
recognized  the  actual  state  of  things.  Note  the  following  instructions  issued  by  his 
commissioners  to  their  subordinates  : “ The  right  of  cultivation  over  a wet  or  upland  piece 
of  land  belongs  to  him  under  whose  name  it  was  registered  during  the  recent  survey.  It 
is  forbidden  to  allow  the  land  to  be  taken  by  another  person,  or  to  take  another  person’s 
land  under  the  pretext  that  one  has  once  had  the  right  of  its  cultivation.”  “ It  is 
strictly  forbidden  to  give  to  the  lord  any  of  the  cultivated  lands  recorded  in  the  register.” 
(Both  quoted  in  T.  Yoshida,  Dai  Ni-hon  chi-mei  zhi-sho,  introduction,  p.  94.)  In  these 
words  are  plainly  implied  the  facts  that  the  peasant  had  gathered  in  his  hands  the  inter- 
ests in  his  holding  that  had  been  split,  and  that  he  had  established  a practical  ownership 
.o'  the  holding.  During  the  next  period,  therefore,  the  sale  or  other  act  of  alienating 
land  meant  a downright  conveyance  of  the  complete  use  of  the  land,  and  rarely  again  a 
fraction  of  interest. 

i°o  Encroachments  upon  Koya  sho  were  continual  throughout  the  period  (Ki,  V,  136- 
140),  and  some  districts  were  temporarily  absorbed  into  military  fiefs  (Koya,  I,  554). 
The  monastery  was  compelled  repeatedly  to  seek  imperial  and  feudal  edicts  recognizing 
its  inviolable  rights  in  its  domains  (Ki,  V,  142-143).  These  continual  turmoils  retarded 
the  economic  and  financial  life  of  some  sho.  Note  large  decreases  in  tilled  areas  and 
proceeds  from  them  in  later  years,  in  Koya,  VI,  568-591 ; VII,  5-14,  24,  27-34,  46-53, 
55-57,  62-66,  69-95,  101-111. 

101  It  seems  that  till  1584  the  monastery  strongly  guarded  the  seven  passes  of  the 
mountain.  Ki,  V,  148.  For  general  service  the  various  sho  owed  to  the  monastery  the 
duty  of  sending  up  armed  contingents.  Koya,  VIII,  183-184.  There  is  an  imperial 
mandate  to  Koya  dated  1463,  ordering  that  a body  of  monastic  troops  should  serve  under 
the  command  of  a feudal  lord  in  an  expedition  against  a rebel  (III,  34)  ; such  cases  of 
external  military  service  for  men  of  Koya  domains  are  extremely  rare,  and  only  serve 
to  indicate  the  armed  strength  that  the  monastery  could  command.  And  it  is  not  sur- 
prising to  find  that,  in  this  age  of  anarchy,  lawless  warriors  in  some  sho  "attempted 
aggressions  upon  surrounding  countries.  Ki,  V,  145-146. 

102  About  1580  Koya  is  said  to  have  controlled  2,063  mura,  or  peasant  communities, 
aggregating  an  annual  yield  equivalent  to  173,000  koku,  or  865,000  bushels  of  hulled 
rice  (Ki,  V,  146),  and  to  have  comprised  within  the  precincts  on  the  mountain  more 
than  7,700  buildings.  However  that  may  be,  the  fact  that  the  proprietary  power  of  Koya 
was  the  greatest  when  it  was  the  most  exposed  to  aggression  bespoke  its  ability  to  take 
care  of  its  own  interest. 

103  In  1581  Koya.  defied  Nobunaga  after  he  had  razed  to  the  ground  the  powerful 
monastery  on  Mount  Hi-ei,  killed  his  envoys,  gave  battle  to  his  expeditionary  army, 
and,  though  it  lost  more  than  1,300  monkish  warriors,  succeeded  in  repelling  the  invaders. 
Ki,  V,  145-146,  etc.  Documents  of  that  time  reveal  that  Koya’s  influence  was  felt  even 
beyond  its  domains,  and  it  commanded  the  service  not  only  of  local  chiefs  and  their 
followers,  but  also  of  four  large  bodies  of  religious  men  in  the  province  of  Kii  who  were 
readily  convertible  into  troops.  Ibid.,  Ill,  supplement,  187-188. 

1M  Officials  in  the  Kdya  sh5,  including  those  in  direct  contact  with  the  peasants,  were 
obviously  treated  by  the  monastery  as  its  employees,  whose  service  was  rewarded  with 
rice  or  land.  Koya,  IV,  154-157 ; VII,  247 ; VIII,  461.  They  were  consequently  all 
dependent  on  the  seignior  for  their  positions.  In  1422  Koya  summoned  all  officials, 
squires,  and  chief  peasants,  on  pain  of  punishment,  to  attend  in  person  on  the  monastery 
for  an  important  conference  (VIII,  237)  ; previously,  in  1367,  the  monastic  council  had 
decreed  that  “ officials  of  all  sho  ” who  did  not  respond  to  a summons  would  be  dismissed 
and  never  reinstated  (VIII,  330). 

Such  probably  was  a universal  tendency  in  Japan,  perhaps  more  advanced  in  military 
fiefs  than  in  religious  domains  ; in  some  of  the  latter  the  higher  agents  in  sho  had  even 
ceased  to  be  hereditary,  but  had  merely  farmed  out  certain  fiscal  rights  for  terms  of 
years.  Cf.  Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  I,  455—459,  469-470 ; III,  403-404,  etc.  The  process 
whereby  the  seignior  had  gradually  succeeded  in  replacing  representative  residents  with 
paid  or  farmed-out  appointees  as  sho  officials  is  well  reflected  in  a feudal  order  of  a late 
date,  which  stated  that  “ in  those  places  where  the  people  owed  various  services  [to 
the  officials],  their  control  should  be  assumed  by  the  monastery  as  soon  as  vacancies 


340 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION, 


occurred”  (ibid.,  Ill,  182)  ; these  posts  then  could  be  given  or  farmed  out  to  others  on 
more  precarious  tenures  than  before. 

105  Towards  1600  thefe  reappeared  in  many  parts  of  Japan  rural  officials  who  were 
in  various  ways  selected  from  among  the  peasants  and  represented  their  interest  (e.  g., 
Koya,  III,  135 ; about  1599)  ; this  is  one  of  the  most  significant  phenomena  of  the 
last  part  of  the  second  feudal  period.  The  one  thing  that  characterized  these  peasant 
agents,  wherever  they  appeared,  was  the  greater  responsibility  imposed  upon  them 
for  the  obedience  and  the  good  conduct  of  the  peasants  than  the  merely  employed 
agents  had  assumed  or  could  have  been  expected  to  assume.  I think  the  meaning  of 
this  is  patent : The  peasantry  was  unarmed  and  therefore  physically  weaker  than  in 
the  earlier  times,  but  was  higher  in  proprietary  status  and  politically  freer ; no  lord 
or  seignior  could  be  a successful  ruler  in  that  age  of  competition  who  failed  to  enlist 
the  good-will  of  the  people  who  were  at  the  foundation  of  the  economic  life  of  society; 
the  consideration  of  the  interest  of  the  peasantry  thus  became  an  essential  art  of 
feudal  statesmanship.  And  it  was  a most  delicate  human  art ; it  had  been  studied, 
discussed,  and  practised  in  China  during  the  centuries  of  her  long  history  as  an  agri- 
cultural state.  The  chief  principles  underlying  the  art,  as  it  was  evolved  in  China, 
and  in  Japan  after  the  sixteenth  century,  would  seem  to  have  been  : Paternal  care  by  the 
lord  for  the  peasant  nature  and  peasant  interest,  and  a large  degree  of  responsibility 
for  order  and  good  behavior  imposed  upon  the  peasants  themselves.  Official  pater- 
nalism and  peasant  responsibility  were  the  very  texture  that  made  the  elaborate  fabric  of 
village  government  under  the  Tokugawa  in  the  third  feudal  period.  The  importance  of 
the  peasant  agent  as  the  medium  between  ruler  and  ruled  is  obvious.  Cf.  Note  96  above. 

Peasant  agents  were  usually  known  as  sho-ya  or  na-nushi.  The  origin  of  the 

latter  term  will  be  referred  to  in  Note  108  below.  Sho-ya,  like  sh6-ka  (both  meaning 
“ sho-house  ” ; see  Note  18  above),  was  first  used  as  early  as  1293  (when  the  pro- 
nunciation was  perhaps  sho-oku  for  the  later  sho-ya),  to  designate  the  house  in  which 
were  the  offices  of  the  sho-agents  (Koya,  III,  660)  ; both  terms  also  applied  to  the 
officials  themselves  in  general.  Now,  sho-ya  stood  for  representatives  of  peasants,  and 
long  survived  the  institution  of  sh5. 

106  Late  in  the  fourteenth  century  two  vassals  of  the  lord  of  the  province  of 

Kii  took  Sarukawa,  and  K6ya  thought  it  expedient  to  treat  them  as  its  officials  till 
the  lord  was  changed.  Koya,  I,  554.  The  monks  made  a general  statement  in  1403 
of  similar  conditions  that  occurred  in  other  places,  in  these  terms : “ The  domains 
of  this  monastery  . . . were  formerly  managed  by  sho-officials  and  people  under  the 
direct  control  of  the  monastery,  and  the  civil  and  military  governors  of  the  province 
did  not  interfere.  When  changes  occurred  in  monastic  domains,  however,  the  military 

governor’s  vassals  encroached  upon  them,  pretending  that  some  were  grants  [from 

the  monastery]  and  others  vacancies  . . . ”.  Ibid.,  IV,  38. 

m The  Tajiri,  from  Chikugo,  and  the  Kono,  from  Iyo,  who  in  the  sixteenth  century 
migrated  into  the  triple  sho,  appropriated  land,  and  made  themselves  lords,  are  seen 
toward  the  end  of  the  second  period  merely  as  district  officials  capable  of  armed 
service,  recompensed  with  money  and  exemptions  from  forced  labor,  not  with  fiefs. 
Ki,  I,  848  ; III,  supp.  187,  189. 

108  As  has  already  been  said  (in  Notes  72  and  73  above),  sales  and  transfers  of  “ name- 
lands  ” are  common  in  the  Koya  cartulary.  What  resulted  from  the  frequent  convey- 
ance of  lands  of  this  variety,  however,  seems  somewhat  more  easily  traceable  in  do- 
mains of  Iwashimidzu  than  in  those  of  Koya,  though  I presume  the  process  must  have 
been  similar  in  both. 

1.  In  many  instances  the  obvious  trend  during  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  was 
the  gradual  replacing  of  the  few  large  holders  of  “ name-lands  ” by  many  small  holders  ; 
a myo,  for  example,  which  once  formed  a part  of  one  man’s  holding  was  in  less  than 
a century  split  among  several  myo-shu  (e.  g.,  Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  I,  478-482 ; II, 
259,  269).  The  result  was  that  myo-holders  were  no  more  than  chief  peasants  of  the 
community.  Cf.  ibid.,  Ill,  389,  420. 

2.  In  the  course  of  transferring  titles  of  “ name-lands,”  they  not  infrequently  were 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  seignior  or  his  agent  (ibid.,  I,  507)  ; in  the  Koya  domains, 
as  it  will  be  remembered  (see  Note  74  above),  this  process  had  been  actively  carried  on 
through  monks.  It  was  then  natural  that  “ name-lands  ” should  lose  all  memory  of 
their  origins,  and  be  freely  disposed  of  by  the  seignior  ; and  that  some  of  them  should 
be  regarded  as  appanages  to  certain  offices  in  sho  the  tenure  of  which  was  accompanied 
with  grants  of  these  lands.  Cf.  ibid.,  441-442. 

3.  The  next  development  was  that  the  title  na-nushi  (the  new  reading  of  the  two 
characters  once  pronounced  myo-shu),  having  been  identified  with  principal  peasants 
and  minor  officials,  was  now  used  regularly,  in  an  identical  sense  with  the  term  sho-ya 
explained  in  Note  105  above,  for  designating  the  representative  chief  of  the  peasant 
community,  quite  irrespectively  of  the  nature  of  his  landholding.  In  fact,  most  na- 
nushi  held  no  “ name-lands.” 


LIFE  OF  A MONASTIC  SHO  IN  MEDIEVAL  JAPAN, 


341 


The  course  of  this  evolution  of  the  “ name  ” outlined  above  is  indicative  of  the  im- 
portant general  developments  that  were  taking  place  among  the  peasantry. 

loo  The  literal  meaning  of  hyaku-sho  (Chinese,  po-sing)  is  “one  hundred  family 
names.”  It  originated  in  China,  where  it  generally  meant  the  subjects  of  the  State 
who  bore  the  burden  of  taxation.  This  central  meaning  has  been  the  same  in  Japan 
as  in  China,  but  there  are  two  conditions  which  should  be  noted  if  one  would  clearly 
understand  the  word  as  used  in  Japanese  history.  In  China,  the  number  of  family  or 
clan  names  has  seldom  exceeded  a few  hundreds ; in  Japan,  on  the  contrary,  family 
names  had  indefinitely  multiplied  as  old  families  branched  out  and  scattered,  until,  to 
make  the  confusion  worse  confounded,  the  very  people  who  were  called  hyaku-sho  in  the 
last  feudal  period  were  not  permitted  to  bear  family  names  (sho)  at  all.  Again,  in 
China,  the  po-sing  have  in  the  past  ages  shown  a remarkable  stability  as  social  classes, 
while  in  Japan  the  conditions  of  the  taxable  classes  had  undergone  important  changes 
before  the  close  of  the  feudal  periods,  both  in  their  social  character  and  in  their  rela- 
tion to  other  classes.  Many  a scholar  has  misled  himself  by  facitly  assuming  that  the 
term  has  always  meant  the  tax-paying  peasants  in  rural  communities ; this  was,  in 
fact,  its  meaning  only  in  the  last  feudal  period,  when  peasants  bore  no  family  names. 
Reflection  should  show  that  the  term  could  be  applied  to  them  in  such  condition  only 
because  It  had  come  down  from  an  earlier  age  when  it  was  first  adopted  from  China 
and  really  designated  taxable  people  bearing  the  comparatively  few  family  names  then 
in  existence.  The  borrowed  term  was  germane  to  the  real  condition  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, but  an  incongruous  survival  a thousand  years  later. 

That  this  was  the  meaning  of  the  term  after  the  reforms  of  the  seventh  century 
is  clear  in  the  annals  and  laws  of  the  period.  The  term  was  nearly  identical  with  ryo- 
min,  free  people,  as  distinguished  from  the  sen  min,  unfree.  The  latter  seems  to  have 
been  a fairly  large  class,  and  the  former  smaller  in  proportion  than  the  hyaku-sho  in  1600. 

111  See  Notes  47-56  above. 

112  This  was  a universal  phenomenon.  A single  illustration  from  a Koya  domain  will 
suffice : In  Shibuta  sho,  about  1422,  besides  hayku-shfi,  administrative  officials  (sa-da 
nin),  and  servants  (shimobe),  there  were  some  men  collectively  called  tono-bara  (squires) 
who  bore  family  names  and  boasted  that  they  had  never  been  subjected  to  menial  service. 
Koya,  VIII,  224,  233,  235.  Note  the  distinct  differentiation  between  the  tono-bara  and 
the  Hyaku-shS.  The  monastery  was  determined  to  subject  both  to  forced  labor  and  gen- 
erally to  bend  them  all  to  its  will.  Ibid.,  224  ff. 

This  is  a transitional  state  of  things.  A more  advanced  picture  is  revealed  in  a domain 
under  Iwashimidzu  ; its  hyaku-sh5,  in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  still  con- 
tained men  bearing  family  names,  but  these  were  hereditary  servitors  of  a Shinto  institu- 
tion and  therefore  more  or  less  genteel ; some  20  years  later  the  hyaku-sho  are  seen  to  be 
a body  of  meek,  unresisting  peasants ; and  thenceforth  men  with  family  names  were  seldom 
mentioned  among  them.  Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  III,  550-565,  581-598,  623-626,  637-639. 

The  term  ji  ge  nin  (men  working  the  soil),  which  was  common  at  least  from  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourteenth  century  (ibid.,  I,  469,  455,  etc.),  perhaps  at  first  implied  a 
lower  status  than  the  term  hyaku-sho,  but  about  1600  the  two  had  become  identical 
(e.  g.,  ibid..  Ill,  654,  663-664;  Koya,  III,  82).  The  Ji  ge  nin  probably  had  not  changed, 
but  the  hyaku-sho  had  gradually  come  round  to  his  position. 

As  the  hyaku-sho  had  become  Incapable  of  defending  themselves,  the  old  policy  of  the 
seignior  to  insure  the  security  of  their  lives  and  property  (e.  g.,  Koya,  I,  217-220,  VI, 
308-309,  and  the  oaths  referred  to  in  note  59  above),  received  added  emphasis  and  was 
made  an  article  in  the  political  creed  of  the  administrator,  not  only  in  the  Koya  sho  but 
in  the  feudal  Japan  at  large. 

mThe  tenant  farmers  in  the  late  second  and  during  the  whole  of  the  third  feudal 
period  in  Japan  could  not  have  formed  a large  class,  for  the  strong  reason,  among  others, 
that  the  small  margin  of  profit  which  was  left  to  the  landlord  between  the  economic  rent 
he  could  receive  and  the  heavy  land  tax  he ‘had  to  pay  effectively  precluded  the  growth 
of  extensive  tenant  farming. 

114  For  the  conditon  of  the  tenant  farmers  in  Japan  after  1600,  I refer  to  my  “ Notes  ” 
(15  and  37)  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  oriental  society,  Vol.  XXX,  pt.  2. 

116  It  was  natural  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  feudal  period  there  were  among  the 
hyaku-sho  small  peasants  who  were  too  poor  to  provide  themselves  with  arms,  and  were 
compelled  to  flee  before  an  invading  warrior  or  an  arbitrary  tax  collector  (e.  g.,  Koya, 
VII,  180,  236)  ; but  large  armed  “ landholders  ” were  also  among  hyaku-sho.  The  early 
condition  of  “ cultivators  ” was  also  varied  and  the  variety  increased  for  a time.  I take 
it  that  the  rural  classes  in  France  had  also  been  complex  before  they  were  settled  as 
serfs  and  villains. 

u#  The  hired  agricultural  laborers  (saku-otoko,  cultivating  men)  were  attached  to 
families,  not  to  land,  usually  for  limited  terms,  though  sometimes  for  generations.  They 
neither  possessed  nor  rented  pieces  of  land  for  their  own  exploitation,  but  it  wa»i  not 


342 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION, 


unusual  after  1600  to  see  a thrifty  saku-otoko  buy  or  rent  land  with  his  savings  and  start 
his  career  as  a tenant  or  an  independent  peasant.  These  laborers  could  not  properly  be 
called  serfs,  for  they  had  no  assigned  holdings,  owed  no  dues  or  fixed  forced  labor,  but  on 
the  contrary  worked  for  wages  or  other  forms  of  remuneration,  and  were  unrestricted  in 
marriage  and  succession,  and  in  the  acquisition  and  disposal  of  poperty  ; nor  was  it  cus- 
tomary to  transfer  them  with  the  land  on  which  they  had  worked  for  their  employers. 
They  were  domestic  hired  men,  no  more  nor  less. 

They  formed  a necessary  institution  in  Japanese  agriculture,  for  the  reason  that  there 
was  a narrow  limit  to  the  working  capacity  of  a peasant  in  his  intensive  rice-culture. 

Since  peasant  holdings  were  small  and  distributed  without  extreme  inequalities,  the 

average  number  of  men  hired  in  a peasant  family  was  probably  one  or  two,  making  their 
presence  unobtrusive  though  universal.  See  also  notes  7 and  49,  above. 

117  It  is  needless  to  say  that  this  process  had  been  gradual  in  the  second  period  ; in 
some  parts  of  Japan  the  evolution  may  not  have  been  completed  for  some  time  after 

1600,  whereas  in  others  it  was  in  evidence  so  early  as  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth 

century  (e.  g.,  see  the  memorial  of  the  governor  of  Settsu  in  1345,  in  Yen-tai  reki, 
diary  of  Fujiwara-no-Kimikata  ; Yale  ms.,  V,  133,  135),  if  not  still  earlier.  See  notes 
90  and  91  above  and  text.  Generally  speaking,  from  the  fifteenth  century  it  becomes 
more  and  more  difficult  to  distinguish  between  “ landholders  ” and  “ cultivators  ” in 
lists  of  men  in  Koya  sho  (Koya,  Y,  356-389  ; VIII,  452—455  ; Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  II, 
264)  ; toward  the  end  of  the  sixteenth,  the  distinction  had  largely  vanished  (Iwashi- 
midzu, III,  426—515)  ; then  the  term  saku-shiki  (right  of  cultivation),  which  had 
formerly  meant  the  right  of  “ cultivatorship  ” (saku-nin  shiki),  had  come  to  mean 
the  right  of  exploiting  the  soil,  and  no  longer  indicated  a “ cultivator  ” as  its  sub- 
ject ; one  who  had  the  new  saku-shiki  was  the  very  holder  of  the  land,  ji-nushi  (ibid.. 
Ill,  629-630).  See  also  a document  of  1391,  in  Ko  mon-zho  rui-san,  3d.  ed.  225. 
Compare  the  instructions  of  Hideyoshi’s  agents  quoted  in  note  99  above. 

n8  That  Koya  domains  had  partially  and  temporarily  been  taken  by  warriors  was 
shown  in  notes  106  and  107  above.  During  the  sixteenth  century  parts  of  religious 
domains  were  treated  by  the  feudal  lords  in  whose  jurisdictions  they  happened  to  be 
situated  as  if  they  were  fiefs  granted  by  them  to  K5ya  (Koya,  V,  636)  or  Iwashimidzu 
(Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  III,  33,  386,  658)  ; but  neither  institution  had  been  com- 
pelled to  submit  itself  to  the  position  of  receiving  all  its  domains  in  fief  from  a lord 
or  suzerain  till  the  time  of  Hideyoshi  late  in  the  century. 

119  The  word  han  (Chinese,  fan),  meaning  “fence,”  “boundary,”  “frontier,”  and, 
hence,  “ march,”  as  well  as  “ protective  barrier,”  also  designated  in  China  large  sections 
of  the  empire  charged  to  the  administration  of  great  princes.  The  Tokugawa  suzerain 
adopted  the  term  for  the  domains  that  he  assigned  in  fief  to  his  barons.  The  han  was, 
therefore,  primarily  territorial  in  its  signification,  and  the  principles  that  ruled  its 
social  organization  were  essentially  feudal.  No  real  tie  of  blood  relationship  bound  to- 
gether the  entire  population  of  a han.  It  is  unfortunate  that  both  native  and  foreign 
writers  in  English  on  feudal  Japan  continue  to  translate  the  term  as  “ clan.”  The  error 
is,  historically  and  sociologically,  too  gross  to  be  tolerated. 

120  Hideyoshi  tamed  the  proud  monastery  with  the  irresistible  art  of  a great  despot. 
In  1584—1586  he  first  peremptorily  ordered  Koya  to  surrender  all  arms  and  all  the  land 
it  had  taken  beyond  the  limits  of  its  “ ancient  domain  ” ; when  the  monastery  seem- 
ingly complied  with  his  will,  he  gave  back  the  bulk  of  the  land  just  revoked,  and  guar- 
anteed an  armed  protection  of  the  mountain.  Koya,  II,  602-606,  III,  64-65,  679-680. 
When  later  he  decreed  a general  survey  of  land  to  be  made  in  all  Japan,  and  Koya 
pleaded  the  inviolability  of  its  domains  against  official  intrusion,  Hideyoshi  summarily 
confiscated  them  all,  made  a complete  survey  of  them — when  he  was  astonished  to  find 
that  Koya  had  been  holding  large  undeclared  possessions  besides  its  “ ancient  domain  ” — 
and  then  gave  back  in  fief  definite  portions  of  the  “ ancient  domain  ” that  represented 
an  annual  productive  power  of  21,000  koku  Of  hulled  rice  in  all,  and  otherwise  showered 
favors  upon  the  subdued  monastery.  Ibid.,  II.  607-609,  622-623 ; Y,  645-646.  This 
was  substantially  the  same  domain  the  grant  of  which  was  renewed  to  Koya  in  1600 
by  Tokugawa  Iyeyasu  ; it  was  but  a fraction  of  the  vast  possessions  Koya  could  boast 
at  the  height  of  its  power  about  1580. 

121  The  monastic  domains,  not  being  military,  were  not  called  han,  but  were  referred 
to  as  zhi-ryo  or  san-ryo  (domains  of  the  monastery,  of  the  mountain). 

122  The  investiture  of  the  entire  domains  as  fief  was  begun  by  Hideyoshi  in  1590  and 
1592.  Koya.  V,  644-G46.  All  fiefs,  feudal  and  religious,  received  a renewed  investiture 
from  the  hands  of  each  new  Tokugawa  suzerain  ; samples  of  the  letters  of  investiture 
of  the  domains  of  Iwashimidzu  by  the  suzerains  between  1600  and  1860  are  given  in 
Iwashimidzu  mon-zho,  III,  660-672. 

123  For  a description  of  these  mura  about  1830,  see  Ki,  I,  784-786,  823-827,  841-859, 
861-865. 


. 


. 

■ 

' 


- 


. 

■ 


. 

_ ■ 


